Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

EU Single Market Access: Manufacturing  and the Economy

Matt Western: What assessment the Government have made of the potential effect on the (a) manufacturing sector and (b) economy of the UK not having access to the EU single market.

Sajid Javid: We want a relationship with the EU that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and is centred on free trade. The economy has grown every year since 2010. Employment is at a record high and wage growth has outpaced inflation for 17 consecutive months. The upcoming Budget will set out ambitious plans to level up across the UK and usher in a decade of renewal.

Matt Western: The Chancellor will be aware that the CBI has spoken out and claimed that business is not ready for Brexit, which has already cost businesses billions of pounds in planning. But the advice is unclear. I spoke to the Federation of Small Businesses and to several small businesses last night, and they are extremely concerned that neither the infrastructure nor the advice is in place.

Sajid Javid: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working very closely with individual businesses and their representative groups. The one thing they have certainly welcomed in the past few weeks is that we have ended the uncertainty around Brexit by actually leaving the European Union, as we said we would. We will be working very closely with business as we forge that new free trade agreement, which I know we will do.

Jonathan Reynolds: Three years ago, at my first shadow Treasury questions from this Dispatch Box, I asked the Government about their plan to continue market access for financial services to EU countries after Brexit. Since that time, the Government’s ambitions have faded from the wide-ranging access-all-areas free trade deal that we were promised, to a basic agreement barely covering goods. The Chancellor  has announced this morning that he is asking for enhanced equivalence for financial services, which the EU has already ruled out and which does not even exist in sectors such as insurance. This is our largest export sector, so how is it that we are still waiting for a credible plan after three years?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right. The EU has not ruled out equivalence. Indeed, it agreed in the political declaration to work at speed on an equivalence decision by the end of July this year, and that is welcome.[Official Report, 13 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 12MC.] We are working very carefully and closely with the EU on having a broad agreement that will mean that our financial services continue to thrive—not only for our benefit, but for its benefit.

Alison Thewliss: Figures released this morning by the Office for National Statistics show that GDP was flat in quarter four, growth is at one of its slowest rates since the financial crisis, the service sector is stagnating, and manufacturing has been particularly hard hit. When will the Chancellor accept the reality that these Tory Brexit plans are playing havoc with the economy, and damaging the wellbeing and prospects of all our constituents?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that growth would have been hit by the uncertainty created in this Parliament before the general election. Since the general election, confidence is back because this country has said no to Marxism and has got on with Brexit.

Alison Thewliss: The Chancellor puts forward a ridiculous prospect of the choices facing this country, because Brexit is the real and present danger for the economy. Just-in-time manufacturing is a critical part of the economy. Elizabeth de Jong of the Freight Transport Association has said of the revelation that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s smart border will not be ready until 2025:
“Frictionless trade has been kicked to the touchline… It’s going to be really costly for business.”
Can the Chancellor tell me what impact four years of Brexit chaos at the border will have on the UK economy and jobs in manufacturing in all our constituencies?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady talks about the importance of manufacturing. Since the change in Government in 2010, we have seen 58% growth in auto manufacturing and 22% growth in aerospace manufacturing. Again, because of the recent general election result, a survey of manufacturers carried out by the CBI a few weeks ago saw the biggest increase in confidence in the history of that survey—in more than 60 years.

Greg Hands: The financial services sector generates 7% of UK GDP, provides 1.1 million jobs and is responsible for £29 billion-worth of tax revenue. Does the Chancellor agree that we need to ensure that the financial services sector is looked after in any trade agreement with the European Union if we are to pay for the infrastructure projects that we expect an announcement on today?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend, as always, is absolutely right. The financial services sector employs millions of people—not just in London, but in Edinburgh, Birmingham  and so many other parts of our great country—and generates more revenue for public services than any other industry. He is right that financial services will be a key part of forging that new relationship with our European friends.

Jacob Young: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to boost our manufacturing sector, and the economy, is by creating 10 new freeports—and the best place for a freeport is, of course, in Redcar?

Sajid Javid: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of freeports. It is a reminder that, as we forge a new chapter for our country outside the EU, there is so much we can do to boost opportunity in our country, and freeports are a key part of that.

Vicky Ford: About 3,000 people work in the insurance sector in Chelmsford—it is a massive contributor to our economy and to the tax take. Given that the EU grants equivalence in the insurance sector to countries such as Bermuda, is it not perfectly reasonable that the EU should offer the UK the same?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On day one, we will have exactly the same rules. We will not be rule takers. We will have the right to diverge in future, but on day one we can absolutely see why the EU will be looking very carefully at the equivalence decision.

Tim Farron: In the South Lakes we have 3,000 local families waiting for a council home, yet the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee says that the Government’s plan for visas and migrant pay will see an 8% reduction in the construction workforce. So will the Chancellor explain who is going to build the homes that families in the South Lakes so desperately need?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, since 2010, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of homes being built. I think that last year there was the highest number of homes built in all but one of the past 30 years. When it comes to building more of those homes, of course we do need enough workers in the industry. That is exactly what our points-based system is about—making sure that it focuses on those areas where we need most support.

Transport Infrastructure Funding

Katherine Fletcher: What steps he is taking to allocate funding for improved transport infrastructure throughout the UK.

Alicia Kearns: What steps he is taking to allocate funding for improved transport infrastructure throughout the UK.

Nicola Richards: What steps he is taking to allocate funding for improved transport infrastructure throughout the UK.

Rishi Sunak: Better transport is central to our ambition to level up and spread opportunity across the United Kingdom. That is why the Chancellor will be unveiling, alongside  his Budget, the national infrastructure strategy, which will set out further details of our plan to increase capital investment to record levels and transform the UK’s infrastructure.

Katherine Fletcher: South of Preston, there is only a single crossing of the River Ribble and a single-track bridge crossing the River Douglas, creating massive choke points for the residents and workers of Lancashire. Will my right hon. Friend consider additional bridges at these crossing points, which are strategically important for the whole of Lancashire as well as South Ribble?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of relieving congestion for improving day-to-day quality of life and driving economic growth. I am pleased that last year her constituency benefited from a £30 million investment to do just that. But there is always more we can do, and I would urge her to consider the Department for Transport’s pinch points fund.

Alicia Kearns: Places such as Melton Mowbray in my constituency have very low unemployment thanks to a thriving food manufacturing sector and the business-friendly policies of this Government, but we need to see wages rise locally. What investment has my right hon. Friend’s Department made to make sure that local councils can provide the transport needed, particularly buses, so that people can get to work and revitalise our high streets?

Rishi Sunak: I am delighted to hear about the economic growth that is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that her local councils are a key part of driving that. I am pleased to say that the Government announced today a £5 billion package to support local transport infrastructure such as buses and cycleways, alongside our existing £3.6 billion towns fund, which 16 different places across the east midlands have benefited from.

Nicola Richards: Andy Street’s vision to revolutionise our transport networks in the west midlands, coupled with the continuation of the HS2 project, will hugely benefit my constituents in West Bromwich East, especially those in Great Barr. The vision that Andy set out only last week included the expansion of the West Midlands Metro system. Ahead of the Budget next month, will my right hon. Friend look at what further funding can be made available to level up our transport infrastructure in the west midlands?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of local intra-city transportation. Obviously the Prime Minister will be making a statement later about national infrastructure. We heard what Andy Street had to say. We are engaging with the Mayor on his exciting plans for intra-city transport and the expansion of the metro line in the west midlands area.

Chris Elmore: May I press the Chief Secretary on infrastructure funding for south Wales, and particularly our railways? I have been asking for three years for additional investment in station improvements, electrification and the level crossing issue in my constituency. If there is any additional funding for infrastructure, please do not forget Wales.

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government are committed to improving transport infrastructure across the United Kingdom. Obviously, some matters are devolved. Network Rail has a £48 billion plan for rail infrastructure. I would be happy to hear from him about the specific projects that he is interested in taking up with it.

Judith Cummins: Reports over the weekend that the Bradford city centre stop is to be dropped from the Northern Powerhouse Rail route are extremely concerning. Given the importance of NPR to any improved transport infrastructure, can the Minister confirm here today that the Government’s preferred route still includes Bradford?

Rishi Sunak: I am a passionate believer in improving east-west connectivity across the north. I am pleased to say that I met the leader of Bradford Council just the other week. Bradford has an exciting future as one of the younger cities in the country. I believe that the plans that NPR has put forward include Bradford. We are happy to look at those. Transport for the North is actively engaging with local stakeholders on the various routes for improving connectivity between Manchester and Leeds, and that includes Bradford city centre.

Sammy Wilson: What progress has been made on the feasibility study on a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland, as promised by the Prime Minister? More immediately, have there been any discussions with the Scottish Government on the upgrading of the A75—an important road link to Northern Ireland and important to the economic corridor in south-west Scotland?

Rishi Sunak: The Prime Minister is passionate about improving connectivity across the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will know, that is one particular project that the Prime Minister has expressed interest in and he can assume that we are busy at work fleshing out what it might look like.

Net Zero Emissions Target

John Howell: What fiscal steps he is taking to ensure that the Government meets its target of net zero emissions by 2050.

Simon Clarke: The clean growth strategy sets out our proposals for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy through the course of the 2020s. This year, the Government will be setting out further detail on plans to reduce emissions in key sectors such as transport, energy and buildings, as well as publishing our net zero review.

John Howell: The next UN climate conference is the perfect opportunity to set out exactly what we are doing to get our emissions down to net zero by 2050. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are committed to doing all they can to achieve that and to delivering the green jobs that come with it?

Simon Clarke: I am a passionate believer in the net zero agenda, and I believe that it is perfectly congruent with economic growth. COP26 presents a huge opportunity  for the UK and globally. We are already a leader in tackling climate change, having reduced the emissions intensity of our economy faster than any other G20 country. We will be doing more at Budget.

George Howarth: The Minister will be aware that, as part of the drive towards zero emissions, there was a recent announcement about bringing forward the phasing out of diesel, petrol and hybrid vehicles to 2035. What assessment has he made of the economic and fiscal impact of doing so, and in particular the loss of jobs that will happen, because the industry is in imminent danger of collapse?

Simon Clarke: We are consulting on the option of accelerating the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars, because the average lifespan of a vehicle is around 14 years, and if we are to hit our net zero targets by 2050, we need to be sensitive to that. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are listening carefully to the industry on this issue. Just last week, I met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders for a productive conversation on how we can do this in a way that supports the sector.

Small Businesses

Anthony Mangnall: What fiscal steps he is taking to help small businesses.

David Evennett: What fiscal steps he is taking to help small businesses.

John Glen: The UK’s 5.8 million small businesses play a vital role in our economy. We have lowered corporation tax from 28% in 2010 to 19%. We have introduced the employment allowance, to reduce employers’ national insurance contributions bill by £3,000 every year, and we have reduced the business rates burden, so that more than 675,000 of the smallest businesses pay no rates at all.

Anthony Mangnall: Last week, Members from across the House came together to celebrate our beers, breweries and pubs. Will the Chancellor and his team raise a glass to our pubs and breweries and lower the duty on those institutions?

John Glen: The Treasury team love pubs, and we recognise the importance of pubs to the economy and to community life up and down this country; they provide a place to socialise and drink responsibly. That is why we have frozen the duty over six of the last seven years, which means that a pint of beer is 14p cheaper than it would have been otherwise, and we are now at a 30-year low in real terms.

David Evennett: We all know that small businesses are the driver of growth and prosperity across our country, but too many struggle because of high business rates. Can the Minister confirm that the Conservative Government will extend the retail discount of 50% later this year, giving a much-needed tax cut to millions of small businesses on high streets across the country?

John Glen: I am delighted to confirm that the retail discount of 50% will operate from 1 April this year. We will also extend the discount to include cinemas and music venues, extend the duration of the local newspaper office space discount, and introduce an additional discount for pubs, worth £1,000, for up to 18,000 pubs up and down the country.

Chris Evans: Most businesses in my constituency are microbusinesses employing one or two people. The biggest problem they have is larger firms not paying their bills on time. What measures can be put in place to ensure that larger companies pay small companies on time so that they can continue with their business?

John Glen: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. That is why we have the Small Business Commissioner. We are working closely with trade bodies to ensure best practice. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leads on this, but we work closely with that Department so that more progress is made on this vital matter.

Thangam Debbonaire: But small businesses will be affected by the news over the weekend that there will not be frictionless trade and that the Government are insisting on not sticking to a level playing field, which will affect small businesses, whether they import or export. So what is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Department doing to prepare small businesses for the inevitable changes that that will bring?

John Glen: We are working closely with the representative organisations to understand those concerns, but it is important that we move forward, secure a free trade agreement and give certainty to small businesses. Their principal concern over the past year is a lack of progress, and it is our responsibility to remove that uncertainty and reach a clear position.

National Infrastructure

Paul Holmes: What steps he is taking to improve the UK's national infrastructure.

Sajid Javid: Infra- structure is a top priority for the Government, which is why we are publishing the national infrastructure strategy alongside the Budget. It will set out further details of the Government’s plan to increase investment to transform the UK’s infrastructure.

Paul Holmes: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to vital national infrastructure, but does he agree that bespoke local infrastructure projects benefit the national infrastructure network by increasing connectivity? An example is the much-needed Chickenhall Lane road link in Eastleigh, for which my constituents have been waiting for over 20 years.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right. Local transport is the backbone of our community, which is why hopefully a welcome announcement will be made today on buses and cycling—a new £5 billion package on local transport. There is also the £150 million fund for smaller projects  to deal with congestion hotspots. I would be pleased to consider the Chickenhall Lane link road in the next available competition.

Nick Smith: Blaenau Gwent needs investment in the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff train line for extra services. The shared prosperity fund could be a crucial route to providing that. When will the fund be ready to support infrastructure projects in our eastern valleys?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as we transition from EU structural funds to the shared prosperity fund, it will be important that we set out exactly how that will work. With reference to his question, it means that the Welsh Government will have to work closely with us to see how we can use that for infrastructure projects in Wales.

Claire Coutinho: Thanks to heavy usage by HGVs, Surrey is sometimes called the pothole capital of England. What steps is the Department taking to invest in tackling potholes nationally, which I am very keen to see in East Surrey?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises an important issue that affects many communities. All our constituents would say that the number of potholes is unbearable nowadays, which is why we made it clear in our manifesto that we will have the largest fund ever put in place by any Government to tackle potholes, with more details at the Budget.

Off-payroll Working Rules Review

Jessica Morden: What progress his Department is making on its review of the implementation of changes to the off-payroll working rules; and if he will make a statement.

Kate Green: What steps he is taking to review the implementation of changes to the off-payroll working rules; and if he will make a statement.

Jesse Norman: The review of the off-payroll working rules reform was announced on 7 January 2020. The reform is due to be extended to medium and large-sized organisations in all sectors from 6 April. It is determining whether any further steps can be taken to ensure smooth and successful implementation, and a series of roundtables with stake- holders has already been conducted. The review will conclude by mid-February, after which recommendations will be made public.

Jessica Morden: With the roll-out of IR35 in the private sector fast approaching, there is already concern that companies are making blanket determinations, forcing genuine contractors into contracts that tax them as employees but with no employment rights. Ahead of the protest here tomorrow, will the Government listen, pause the process and work with the industry to do a proper review?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady may be aware that we have already made a small but important change to the roll-out as a result of the review. We are not aware of  blanket determinations being made, although it must be said that many firms are choosing to acknowledge disguised employment and bring those contractors in-house. The hon. Lady should also be aware that there are various routes by which determinations can be challenged, including, if necessary, a submission under the income tax self-assessment process, for a final determination.

Kate Green: We all want to crack down on tax avoidance but legitimate contractors in my constituency face uncertainty about their status and tax liability thanks to unclear HMRC guidance and the unreliability of CEST—check employment status for tax—and the firms they work for are cancelling contracts because of the confusion. What is the Minister doing to address their concerns?

Jesse Norman: We are conducting a review to ensure that this is as smooth as possible. We recognise that there is difficulty here. Some 18 months have passed since the original reform of status determination was announced and in that process we have had a consultation, draft legislation and further discussions and consultation, and we are having a further review now to make sure it is properly and smoothly rolled out.

Desmond Swayne: Against how many of the pillars of taxation did the Economic Affairs Committee in the other place judge the 2010 legislation on the loan charge to have failed?

Jesse Norman: We have a question about the loan charge later on, so I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s further question then. He can answer on the number of pillars because I am sure he has scrutinised the Committee’s hearings very carefully. What I can tell him is that the fundamental principle of tax is that it should be properly collected from people who owe it and who may be avoiding it, and that is what this is designed to do.

Zero VAT Rate: E-publications

Martyn Day: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of introducing a zero-rate of VAT for e-publications.

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question about e-publications and see by the way, Mr Speaker, that your predecessor Speaker Bercow’s book, aptly named “Unspeakable: the Autobiography” has just been published. Apparently it is an online bestseller in the rather surprising, slightly niche category of blues musician biographies. Unlike many other e-books, it is considerably cheaper than the book itself; whether that will remain so is not clear. I do not know whether you have had a chance to peruse the work, Mr Speaker, but if you have, I am sure you will agree that no reader would have their appetite to read it affected by a reduction in tax. What this brings out is that the pricing of e-books is a commercial decision, and it is far from clear whether changing the tax would affect that decision.

Martyn Day: I thank the Minister for his entertaining answer. Scottish National party Members are very disappointed that the last Government refused to back  our demands to remove VAT from electronic publications. So with the Budget only a month away, will he consider a change of policy so that at the very least, online children’s books and academic journals can become more affordable?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are benefits associated with extending the zero rate of VAT in this area, as in others. The task for Government is to work out what is the right thing to do, all things considered. All I can say is that we have responded to the Cairncross review in part of this area, and we continue to keep all taxes under review, especially in the lee of a budget.

Michael Fabricant: While agreeing with the point made for the SNP by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), does the Minister not find it somewhat ironic that the only way we can reduce the rate of VAT to zero is through Brexit, yet the SNP wishes to remain in the EU, and we would therefore not be able to reduce VAT if that were the case?

Jesse Norman: That is a very telling point, and I draw the House’s attention to the parallel issue of sanitary products for women, on which I am pleased to say we will be able to act after we have left the EU.

Local Authority Funding

Bambos Charalambous: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the adequacy of allocations of funding for local authorities.

Rishi Sunak: The financial health of local authorities remains a priority for the Government and for me personally as a former local government Minister. I am pleased to say that next year’s local government finance settlement outlines and will deliver the biggest year-on-year increase in local government spending power for over a decade.

Bambos Charalambous: For over 10 years, Enfield has been significantly underfunded, which has had a huge impact on the provision of local services. The proposed settlement goes nowhere near addressing the shortfall. Will the Minister meet me and the Enfield Borough Over 50s Forum to discuss Enfield’s needs?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is undertaking a review of the funding formula for local government, and I am sure that Enfield Council has participated in that. There will be a formal consultation later this year, and I encourage the council to input its particular needs if those are not adequately captured by today’s formula. In the forthcoming financial year, Enfield can look forward to an almost 6% cash increase in the spending power it has available for its residents and communities.

Peter Dowd: In addition to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has the Chief Secretary had any discussions with the representatives of Hyndburn, Burnley, Leigh, Blackpool  South, Colne Valley, Durham North, Keighley, Stoke-on-Trent Central and North or Workington concerning the adequacy of the funding for the councils covering their constituencies?

Rishi Sunak: In my previous role I had many conversations with councils up and down the country. Indeed, in this job I take representations from the Local Government Association, the District Councils’ Network and the Core Cities consortium, among others. The point is that this will be an evidence-based formula that looks at the various needs of all authorities up and down the country. It is being done in partnership with independent academics to help us arrive at a formula that is fair for every part of the country and every local authority.

Peter Dowd: Clearly those discussions were not very productive, were they? I can tell hon. Members that, according to the LGA, the likely outcome is 6.6, 6.6, 6.5, 6.4, 6.2, 10, 10, 9 and 4. I am referring not to Olympic ice skating marks, but to the additional millions that will be lost respectively by the councils of the hon. Members I listed. In all, 37 councils of the 50 new Tory MPs—that is 70%—are set to lose millions under the Government’s so-called fair funding formula. Did the Chief Secretary mention that to his new colleagues, or has he been too busy keeping an eye on the potential job vacancies?

Rishi Sunak: The figures the hon. Gentleman refers to are pure speculation. The formula has not been concluded yet, so it is a bit difficult to talk about the conclusions in advance of that. There will be a consultation. Regardless of the type of area that any Member in this Parliament represents—rural or urban, north or south—it will be an evidence-based formula. All the various criteria that drive local government spend, whether it is rurality or deprivation, will be taken into account. All Members can have input into that process and can have confidence that the final formula will be fair and, importantly, evidence-based.

Derek Thomas: The Treasury team will know how difficult it is to get a funding formula to operate for places like the Isles of Scilly, which are remote and sparsely populated. Good work is being done to bring health and social care together under one roof. Can the Minister shed more light on how difficult areas such as this can be funded in the future?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor met my hon. Friend and his local authority recently to discuss this issue, and I have taken representations from them in the past. My hon. Friend is right that rurality and the particular geographic challenges posed by his constituency should be taken into account in the new formula. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will do that when he looks at all the representations in the spring.

Harriett Baldwin: In addition to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to speak to the Secretary of State for Education about the pressure on school budgets from the local  government pension scheme? On a visit to the excellent Hanley Castle High School in my constituency last week, I discovered that almost half its payroll is covered by the local government pension scheme and that it is experiencing a lot of budgetary pressure from that.

Rishi Sunak: The local government pension scheme is fully funded, which means that all local authorities contribute on an annual basis. It is right that that is taken into account when setting annual budgets. I am pleased that the Government have outlined a three-year school settlement, which will take school funding up by £4 billion in real terms over the forthcoming spending period. Those extra resources will allow schools to deal with the pension pressure and invest in our classrooms, which is where the money needs to go.

Meg Hillier: It was extraordinary to hear the Treasury Minister talk about the biggest year-on-year increase in funding after a decade of major cuts. He knows, because he can do the maths, that that is nowhere near making any recompense. The Public Accounts Committee looked in detail at local government spending and we concluded that in simple terms, it was being squeezed massively, particularly for children’s and adult’s social services. When will he acknowledge that for many things that his Government purport to want to deliver, local government is key and that it needs sustainable and increased funding to make up for the cuts of the previous decade?

Rishi Sunak: Local government deserves enormous praise for the hard work that it did in helping to restore this country’s public finances to a sustainable state. We all know why we were in that situation a decade ago, but we can now look forward with confidence. Local government is benefiting from a very significant increase in spending power this year. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the pressure on social care, which is one of the largest areas of spend, which is why the Government have just committed an extra £1 billion in social care grant to help local authorities to alleviate that pressure this year and into the future.

Equity of Economic Opportunity

Tom Randall: What plans he has to help ensure equity of economic opportunity throughout the UK.

Sajid Javid: We will level up opportunity across the UK to ensure that every region and nation benefits from growth, including through better infrastructure, public services and investment in skills. I will set out more details in the Budget through the national infrastructure strategy.

Tom Randall: Many of my constituents are delighted about the Government’s plans to level up funding across the country. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what that will mean for the people of east midlands and my constituents in Gedling?

Sajid Javid: As we level up opportunity in every region, we will make sure that the whole country benefits, including the east midlands. That includes, for example, the £3.6 billion towns fund that we have announced,  with 16 town deals in the east midlands. The Government are also committed to the £250 million growth deal, which provides funding for the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire areas and will include projects such as the Gedling access road.

Lyn Brown: This is beyond parody. The reality is that after 10 years of Tory rule, the five richest families in this country own more wealth than 13 million of us put together. Fourteen million of us live in poverty. Two out of three of those are in working households. Childcare, transport and the cost of rent hold millions back, so will the Chancellor accept some tests for his Budget? Will he cut child poverty? Will he cut homelessness? Will he end the need for food banks? Will his Budget match his words? The hell it will.

Sajid Javid: Let me tell the hon. Lady what we have seen under 10 years of Tory rule, after Labour’s great recession. We have had nine consecutive years of growth. We have an economy that is nearly 17% bigger than it was in 2010, and 3.9 million jobs have been created—I would think that a party that calls itself the Labour party would welcome that. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 45 years, and according to the International Monetary Fund, our economy will grow faster this year than those of Italy, Japan, France and Germany.

Kevin Hollinrake: Small and medium-sized enterprises are critical to economic opportunity and would undoubtedly benefit from greater access to business finance, yet challenger banks suffer from the same capital requirements as larger banks, despite the fact that they do not present the same systemic risk. Will my right hon. Friend say what he might be able to do to change that situation?

Sajid Javid: This is something that I have discussed with regulators. My hon. Friend is right in his general point about challenger banks and the risks that they may or may not represent. It is right that we take a fresh look at this because having more competition in the banking sector is a good thing, especially for SMEs.

Co-operative and Mutual Businesses: Tax Contribution

Jim McMahon: What recent assessment his Department has made of the contribution to the public purse of tax paid by co-operative and mutual businesses.

John Glen: I recognise the positive impact that co-operatives and mutuals have across all sectors of the economy, including retail, agriculture and financial services. No assessment has been made of the amount of tax paid by co-operative and mutual businesses, but I note that the report last year from the all-party group for mutuals found that mutuals generate over £130 billion to benefit the wider economy each year.

Jim McMahon: It is a matter of fact that the three largest co-ops in this country pay more tax than Facebook, Amazon and Caffé Nero combined, so not only are they creating jobs but; they are also paying fairly into the Exchequer. Will the Minister meet me and  representatives from the co-op and mutuals sector to discuss that part of the economy and make sure that Britain can thrive in an inclusive way?

John Glen: Yes, I will. There are 7,000 co-ops across the United Kingdom, employing nearly a quarter of a million people. I have had numerous meetings over the past two years with representatives of co-ops and mutuals, and we had a mutuals workshop last July. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the recent Manchester mutuals report and to see what we can do together.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Mike Wood.

Mike Wood: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker—it has been so long!
Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Midcounties co-operative. Will my hon. Friend consider broadening the eligibility for social investment tax relief so that more mutuals and social enterprises can deliver excellent services and outstanding social value?

John Glen: I always listen very carefully to what my hon. Friend says. I think the best way forward would be for me to meet him to discuss his specific proposals and see what can be done.

Loan Charge 2019

Seema Malhotra: How many people will be affected by the 2019 loan charge after the Government have implemented the recommendations of Sir Amyas Morse’s review.

Laurence Robertson: How many people will be affected by the 2019 loan charge after the Government have implemented the recommendations of Sir Amyas Morse’s review.

Jesse Norman: Of the estimated 50,000 individuals affected by the loan charge, the Government currently estimate that more than 30,000 will benefit from the changes. That includes about 11,000 people who will be taken out of paying altogether. In addition, individuals who have settled or who are settling their tax liability with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be out of scope of the charge.

Seema Malhotra: Neither the law nor HMRC made clear the position regarding loans and self-employed people. Indeed, it was not until 2016 that it was announced that the law would be changed to include the self-employed and others who did not even find out until a year or two later, such as my constituent Dhruv Salotra. Will the Financial Secretary do the obvious thing, get rid of all retrospection and apply the loan charge from when the law was clear and applied to everyone, including the self-employed, and, in addition, clamp down on those who promoted these disguised renumeration schemes in the first place?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is important to crack down on promoters, and at the Budget we will bring forward a package about how to  do that. Her wider point, however, is wrong: this is not a retrospective measure. It is also true that the Government have to some extent been vindicated by Sir Amyas Morse, who found that the loan charge was an appropriate way to respond to tax avoidance and, after detailed argumentation, suggested a date in December 2010 as the correct date from which to date the legality of it.

Laurence Robertson: But even 2010 is 10 years ago, so if the law was clear then, as the report suggests, why did HMRC not act then? Surely this matter is its responsibility.

Jesse Norman: HMRC did pursue these cases quite vigorously. Sir Amyas found, on the basis of detailed consideration, that the law was clear then, and therefore HMRC rightly believed that people would accommodate it. Of course, it pursued people who had been avoiding tax through disguised renumeration schemes for many years before that, and it will continue to do so for those that have been carved out by the loan charge review.

Ruth Cadbury: The Treasury has accepted some of Sir Amyas Morse’s recommendations, but there is confusion about some of them. A constituent of mine got caught in a disguised renumeration scheme before 2010, and yet he is still not convinced that he is in the clear and has that fear hanging over him. What does the Financial Secretary have to say about that?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. We accepted all but one of Sir Amyas’s recommendations, and we did not accept that one because the issue he raised was already being handled very well within the system. If the hon. Lady has a specific concern, she is very welcome to raise it with tax commissioners or, indeed, with me, although on an anonymised basis because obviously I cannot deal with specifics.

Productivity

Alan Mak: What steps he is taking to improve UK productivity.

Sajid Javid: You ain’t no Deputy, Mr Speaker!
Increasing productivity is the best way to boost wages and improve living standards. We have worked hard to build a stronger, fairer economy, dealing with the deficit, helping people into work, and cutting taxes for families and businesses.

Alan Mak: The link between investment in research and development and increased productivity is well recognised. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage more private sector investment in R&D to help Britain become a leader in the fourth industrial revolution?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done to put the UK at the forefront of the fourth industrial revolution. He is right to raise the importance of research and development. We are committed to investing an additional £7 billion in R&D by 2021-22 —the largest increase in 40 years—and, as my hon. Friend will know, in our manifesto we committed ourselves to going even further.

Alison McGovern: The people with the least productive, lowest-paid jobs, although often highly skilled, are women working in care, retail or hospitality. Where is the Chancellor’s productivity plan for the women in our country?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we have more women in employment than ever before in our history, and that the gender pay gap is the narrowest ever recorded. However, she is right: we need to do more, and more investment will help, whether it is in infrastructure or skills. What will also help is our new points-based immigration system. Too often businesses have sought to take unskilled labour from abroad and cut the wages of people locally, and we must put an end to that as well.

Topical Questions

Stephen Crabb: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: We have ended the uncertainty over our departure from the European Union, and we stand at the beginning of a new chapter. I know that the future is bright as we level up our country and unleash Britain’s potential. We have confirmed that 31 million people will receive a tax cut in April, and in the Budget on 11 March I will continue to lay the foundations for a decade of renewal. We will also set out our plans for an infrastructure revolution and for better investment in our most important asset of all, our human capital.

Stephen Crabb: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that when we talk about levelling up, we are indeed talking about levelling up the whole United Kingdom—all regions and all nations? May I encourage him to show real determination to ensure that the devolved nations also see and feel the benefit of his ambitious infrastructure proposals?

Sajid Javid: I can absolutely confirm that to my right hon. Friend. We are blessed with talent throughout our country. Wherever we look, we have talent. Our country is oozing with talent, and that, of course, includes Wales: we have just seen a demonstration of that talent. We need to ensure that there is much more opportunity, which means investment in infrastructure and skills and retaining a dynamic, competitive economy.

John Martin McDonnell: In the last month we have seen the Financial Times predicting that the Chancellor will miss his balanced budget target, and today we have seen zero growth in the economy. At the same time, Mr Dominic Cummings has demanded cuts in taxes and massive spending commitments, so the Chancellor has resorted to floating a possible raid on middle-income pensions, a mansion tax—once described as Marxist—and a 5% cuts round to find some money to pay for Mr Cummings’s demands. Yet in the real world out there, the victims of Wonga, the payday loan company, were told a fortnight ago that they would receive less than 5% of the compensation that they are owed. Will the Chancellor take a break from his arm-wrestling with Mr Cummings, and introduce measures to compensate the Wonga victims fully?

Sajid Javid: I think that I have to correct myself. I said that there was talent throughout the country, but, judging by what we have just heard, I do not think that that includes the Labour party.
There is all sorts of speculation about the Budget, and I am not going to respond to that. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that when the Budget is published, it will be published alongside a report by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Those are the figures that are going to matter, not the ones that are speculated about in the press. As for growth, the right hon. Gentleman will also know that although there has been a fall in global growth, the International Monetary Fund forecasts that Britain will grow faster this year than France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

John Martin McDonnell: I asked about Wonga. [Hon. Members: “You did.”] On the basis of that answer, I can see why No. 10 nicknamed the right hon. Gentleman CHINO: Chancellor in name only.
Wonga is just one example of the recent scandals in the financial sector. We have seen the scandals of closet tracking last year, London Capital & Finance, Woodford Investment Management, the tax avoidance by Lycamobile —a Tory party donor—NMC Health’s misreporting today, large-scale money-laundering, and audit failure after audit failure. Regulation of the finance sector—I say it again—is clearly failing, and now there is the risk to jobs resulting from the tardiness of a post-Brexit settlement. Let me put this to the Chancellor: can he assure me that the White Paper that he has promised today will address the failure of regulation and the culture of recklessness and abuse that has developed in some sections of the City, in addition to the risks from Brexit, so that we can plan a long-term stable future for our finance sector?

Sajid Javid: I remember that not long ago the shadow Chancellor stood here and said that he wanted to be known as the “people’s Chancellor”. I think the people had a very different idea, however. On his question about high-cost credit, when I was last in the Treasury as Economic Secretary, that was the first time that any Government had introduced proper regulation around high-cost credit. This is something that we keep under review, which is why, as we present our White Paper, we will be looking to see what more we can do.

Stephen Hammond: Many in financial services will warmly welcome the Chancellor’s remarks in the papers yesterday about equivalence arrangements, but does he agree that the real value to those arrangements is in the length of the revocation period? Will he therefore press for revocation notices of a minimum of a year and preferably three years?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Equivalence arrangements, done properly, would require a period of stability to be agreed, and that is exactly what we are working on with our European friends.

Bill Esterson: Funding for coal mining ended in 2012, but it carries on for oil and gas, as we saw at the recent Africa summit and in the lobbying for the Petrofac oil refinery in Bahrain. When is the Chancellor going to end funding for fossil fuel projects and take the action that is needed to tackle the climate crisis?

Simon Clarke: The UK takes our climate commitments exceptionally seriously, and we have pledged to end the use of unabated coal here in the UK by 2025. Clearly we want to ensure that that applies to our work overseas as well, and that is something that the Government as a whole take very seriously. It is the subject of ongoing ministerial discussions and we are determined to ensure that we support the right initiatives across the world.

Flick Drummond: Over the past few weeks, I have met a number of businesses in the Meon Valley whose growth is being held back by poor internet connectivity. What funding exists to help businesses in rural areas to boost their productivity and growth by improving their broadband?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. The Government have already put in place the gigabit broadband voucher scheme and the rural gigabit connectivity scheme, which is available to small and medium-sized enterprises and gives support of up to £3,500 per company. She will also be pleased to know that the Government have committed £5 billion to invest in new infrastructure to ensure that every part of our country has the best possible broadband.

Matt Western: Will the Chancellor ensure, in the Budget in March, that the automotive manufacturing sector gets the support it requires? He will know that there was a decline of 14% in our manufacturing production last year, which represents a big hit to the Treasury. Will he put in place the support to ensure a transition from fossil fuels, so that we can still produce vehicles such as diesel-powered units in good numbers while supporting the switch to electric vehicles?

Simon Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Tomorrow I am attending a roundtable at 11 Downing Street with representatives of the advanced manufacturing industry, and we are determined to take their views into account as we make this transition. We are supporting the industry through initiatives such as the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge, and we are determined to ensure that the sector evolves in a way that boosts our growth prospects as we decarbonise.

Damien Moore: Last year my town of Southport benefited from a £25 million town deal. What more is my right hon. Friend doing to help other towns up and down the country to level up?

Rishi Sunak: As the Chancellor said, the Government are committed to levelling up across the country, and part of that involves our town deals to help to revitalise our high streets. Also, as the Prime Minister will say later, we have unveiled a £5 billion package to improve local connectivity, including bus and cycle lanes, to improve the quality of life and economic opportunity in local towns.

Afzal Khan: In September last year, standing at the Dispatch Box the Chancellor declared that austerity was at an end, but just last month he demanded that each Department  cut 5% of its budget—hardly a glowing endorsement of the end of austerity. Will the Chancellor now admit that the Government never had any intention of ending austerity or easing the pain felt by millions around the country?

Sajid Javid: With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing cutting spending and tackling waste, and we know that the previous Labour Government was good at neither of those, with overspending and loads of waste. It is right that as a Government we look carefully at every single pound that is spent and make sure it is done so appropriately.

Damian Hinds: Creditor enforcement action can greatly exacerbate the problems that people going through mental health crises can experience. May I commend the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary for the breathing space initiative, which will help to ease the pressure on those people and so many more?

John Glen: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, and I am very pleased that the breathing space scheme is moving forward. We published the impact assessment last week, and 700,000 people will benefit from the scheme next year when it comes into force. That number will rise to 1 million in the following year.[Official Report, 24 February 2020, Vol. 672, c. 2MC.]

Ben Bradshaw: Depending on which briefing to today’s newspapers was accurate, the infrastructure announcement will fund a grand total of either 250 or 1,000 miles of new designated cycleway. That is to be compared with the 1,800 being provided by the Labour Mayor in Manchester alone. How can a small city such as Exeter hope to get any of the help, resources or the powers it needs to deliver on the cycling infrastructure as it desperately wants to do?

Sajid Javid: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the announcement today was of £5 billion of fresh funding for local transport—buses and cycling. When it comes to cycling—something we all want made easier to access for all our constituents—there will be 250 miles of new dedicated cycle track.

Stephen Metcalfe: I know that the Government are committed to renewing and improving our national infrastructure. However, those improvements have to represent value for money. I therefore urge the Chancellor to question both the cost and effectiveness of the current proposals for a new lower Thames crossing and suggest that he re-examines both the business case and the alternative options.

Sajid Javid: I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns and he is right to raise this. He will be pleased that Highways England is conducting a supplementary consultation on the lower Thames crossing to make sure that any benefits are maximised. The consultation will close on 25 March, and I will then look at it carefully. I would encourage him to have his say.

Wera Hobhouse: As a former teacher, I know that a good education is a key driver to economic opportunities for young people, but sixth forms have  been heavily damaged by years of under-investment. Will the Chancellor commit to implementing the recent recommendation from the Education Committee and Ofsted to raise the rate of funding per pupil to at least £4,760 in next month’s Budget?

Rishi Sunak: Post-16 education and skills are a priority for the Chancellor and the Government. I am pleased to say that the recent spending round delivers a £400 million increase in funding for post-16 education, which makes it the fastest rise in a decade and means that the per pupil base rate that the hon. Lady mentions will go up faster than the schools total.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will know that I have written to him about the legal duty that the OBR has to produce two economic forecasts in each financial year, which of course has been complicated by the cancellation of the last Budget. Can I ask him to set out for the House the approach that he intends to take and how he will avoid the necessity of having two forecasts very close together saying essentially the same thing?

Sajid Javid: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being elected as the Chair of the Treasury Committee. I look forward to working with him and to the scrutiny that he will provide, as he is doing right now. The issue about the forecasts the OBR needs to provide is a live one, and we will make sure that the OBR meets its statutory requirements. I am pleased that the head of the OBR, Robert Chote, has discussed it with my right hon. Friend, and I would be happy to discuss it with him too.

Gavin Robinson: The Chancellor will know of the association between productivity, economic opportunity and regional productivity. Noting that Flybe is in the news again today, and knowing how important it is to Belfast City airport in my constituency and regional hubs throughout this United Kingdom, will he remember those three principles as he charts a course to find a permanent solution for that aviation company?

Sajid Javid: Of course I will keep that in mind. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are absolutely committed to spreading opportunity throughout the country—throughout each of the nations that make up the United Kingdom—and we want to look at all the ways we can improve connectivity.

Jo Gideon: The Goodwin International training school in my constituency is an exemplar of skills training by a successful modern manufacturer with a world-class reputation. For less established firms such as challenger small and medium-sized enterprises, what support is on offer to level them up to Goodwin International standards?

Simon Clarke: I had a good meeting yesterday with my hon. Friend and fellow Stoke and north Staffordshire MPs. The Government are supporting small firms across England through the network of 38 growth hubs, one of which is based on Stoke-on-Trent. In our manifesto, we announced our intention to create a national skills fund, which will help to transform the  lives of people who have not got on the work ladder and lack qualifications, as well as people looking to return to work or to upskill.

Peter Grant: Every year Scotland exports a quarter of a billion pounds worth of salmon to the European Union. This week, the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation expressed serious concern about the continuing uncertainty of Brexit. What assessment  has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made of the impact on this vital industry of the Chancellor of the Duchy Lancaster’s announcement that “as friction-free as possible” trade with the EU means “not friction-free at all”?

Sajid Javid: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with the fishing industry, including salmon producers, to make sure that as we put in place our new free trade agreement, it will continue to thrive.

Transport Infrastructure

Boris Johnson: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the transport revolution that we intend to bring about.
There are all sorts of reasons why the city in which we now sit is the most productive region in the whole of Europe. We have the time zone, the language and the agglomeration of talents. Above all, we have a mass transit system that every day conveys millions of people efficiently and affordably, with tubes and trains and 8,600 buses, into the central activities zone in the morning and out in the evening, like the respiration of some vast undersea coelenterate. As the public transport network has expanded in the last 150 years, it has brought hope and opportunity and job prospects to people growing up in every part of the city and beyond. It is the ambition of this Government to employ that same utensil—fantastic transport infrastructure—to unite and level up across the whole country.
Of course there is far more to do in London—frankly, the present Mayor needs to be shaken out of his complacency—but there is even more to do across the nation as a whole. Whether they are stuck in a jam on the A303 or on the outskirts of Lincoln, whether they are trying to get from Warrington to Manchester or toiling across the Pennines by rail, people know that this country is being held back by our inadequate infrastructure. So in the next few weeks this Government will be setting out more details of the transport revolution, because we all know the potential of transport to change people’s life and the life of their town or city. We know that efficient transport can clean the air and cut pollution and get cars off the road. We can simultaneously reach our ambition of net zero by 2050 and shorten people’s commute, giving them more time with their family, increase productivity and bring business and investment to left behind communities.
That is why we are embarking now on a massive programme of investment in local transport, starting with a record-breaking £5 billion of new investment in buses and bicycles. That investment will mean bus passengers across the country seeing a dramatic improvement in their daily journeys, with more than 4,000 brand-new buses—zero-carbon, British-built buses—on the roads of places such as Ashfield, Barnstaple, Southampton, Manchester and many more towns and cities besides. There will be more services, including in the evenings and weekends, as well as simpler, cheaper and more convenient ticketing and properly designed priority schemes to speed passengers past the traffic jams. It is an investment that will also mean cyclists enjoying hundreds of miles of brand-new separated lanes, with “mini-Hollands” blooming like so many tulips in towns and cities right across the country.
That £5 billion is just the start. My very good friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a full announcement in next month’s Budget, and I have no desire to steal his thunder, but I can signal today that we are taking forward transformative improvements from Cornwall to the A1 north of Newcastle, from south Salisbury to south Ribble, from Cheadle to Chiverton, with dual carriageways, roundabouts, bypasses and underpasses—and those are just the roads. We have already set out plans to explore new investments in the rail network across the north, developing proposals to  reopen the Fleetwood line in Lancashire and the Ashington to Blyth rail line in the north-east, improving track and platform capacity at Middlesbrough station—

Simon Clarke: Hear, hear!

Boris Johnson: Thank you. We will be installing new signalling at Harrogate, one of North Yorkshire’s busiest stations. Further south, I can today announce that we will be upgrading the Bristol east junction, a major pinch point in the rail network of the south-west that limits access to the Brunel-designed Victorian splendour of Bristol Temple Meads station.
This transport revolution is local, because it must be local. We can unite and level up across the country with fantastic local improvements: better rail; less congested roads; and beautiful, British-built buses that are cleaner, greener, quieter, safer and more frequent. Above all, we can improve the quality of life for people and improve their productivity. We can make places more attractive to live in and to invest in. But we cannot make these improvements in isolation from one another, because we will be doing only half the job; we will not fix the great musculoskeletal problem of UK transport. Yes, we must fix the joint between the knee bone and the thigh bone and the shin bone and the ankle bone. Yes, we must fix the arthritis in the fingers and the toes, but we also have to fix the spine, and our generation faces a historic choice. We can try to get by with the existing routes from north to south. We can consign the next generation to overcrowding and standing up in the carriageways, or we can have the guts to take a decision—unlike the party opposite—no matter how difficult and controversial, that will deliver prosperity to every part of the country. This will take 50 minutes off the journey time to Glasgow.
When it comes to advocating HS2, it must be said that the task is not made easier by HS2 Ltd, the company concerned. Speaking as a Member of Parliament whose constituency is on the route, I cannot say that HS2 Ltd has distinguished itself in the handling of local communities. As everybody knows, the cost forecasts have exploded, but poor management to date has not detracted from the fundamental value of the project. The review recently conducted by Douglas Oakervee, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House, leaves no doubt of the clinching case for high-speed rail: a vast increase in capacity, with hundreds of thousands of extra seats, making it much easier for travellers to move up and down our long, narrow country. That means faster journey times. It means not just more capacity, but faster journey times—extraordinarily fast journey times. Passengers arriving at Birmingham Airport will be able to get to central London by train in 38 minutes, which compares favourably with the time it takes to get from Heathrow by taxi, a point I just draw to the attention of the House.
But this is not just about getting from London to Birmingham and back. [Interruption.] It is also considerably faster than the Piccadilly line. This is about finally making a rapid connection from the west midlands to the northern powerhouse—to Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds—and simultaneously permitting us to go forward with northern powerhouse rail across the Pennines, finally giving the home of the railways the fast connections they need. None of that makes any sense without HS2.  The Infrastructure and Projects Authority considers that the first phase can be delivered for its current projected cost of £35 billion to £45 billion in today’s prices. The designs have been improved immeasurably thanks to the tireless contributions of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who I do not think is in her place.
If we start now, services could be running by the end of the decade, so today the Cabinet has given high-speed rail the green signal. We are going to get this done, and to ensure that we do so without further blow-outs on either cost or schedule, we are today taking decisive action to restore discipline to the programme. I will be appointing a Minister whose full-time job will be to oversee the project, a new ministerial oversight group will be tasked with taking strategic decisions about it, and there will be changes to the way HS2 Ltd is managed. In line with Mr Oakervee’s recommendations, we will interrogate the current costs to identify where savings could be made in phase 1 without the costs and delays that would be associated with a detailed redesign, and so that the company can focus solely on getting phases 1 and 2a built on something approaching time and budget, I will create new delivery arrangements for both the grossly behind-schedule Euston terminus and phase 2b of the wider project.
Before those designs are finalised and legislation is introduced, we will also present an integrated plan for rail in the north. Informed by an assessment from the National Infrastructure Commission it will, in line with the findings of the Oakervee review, look at how we can best design and integrate rail investments throughout the north, including Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester. I have just spoken to the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has warmly welcomed the project, which I committed to supporting, I seem to remember, during my first days in office.
I want the plan to identify the most effective design and sequencing of all relevant investments in the north. For example, with many in the north crying out for better east-west links instead of improved north-south ones, which we have heard about many times in the House, some have suggested delaying or even cancelling HS2 in order to get Northern Powerhouse Rail done more quickly. I say to the House that it is not an either/or proposition: both are needed and both will be built as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible. To make sure that that happens we will, working closely with northern leaders, explore options for creating a new delivery vehicle for Northern Powerhouse Rail, and we will start treating HS2 north of Birmingham, Northern Powerhouse Rail and other local rail improvements as part of one integrated masterplan: high-speed north.
Something has to change. Those who deny that—those who say that we should simply build phase 2b and Northern Powerhouse Rail according to the plans currently on the table—are effectively condemning the north to get nothing for 20 years. That would be intolerable, so as we draw up this plan, we are not asking whether it is phase 2b or not 2b. That is not the question; the question is how we can bring a transport revolution to the north sooner.
Altogether, this revolution in local and national transport has the potential to be truly transformative for the entire country. Yes, it is ambitious, but ambition is what  we have lacked for far too long. Two centuries ago our ancestors could have been content with breeding faster horses; instead, they invented the railways—they created the transport network on which the United Kingdom rose to economic pre-eminence. They looked to the future of transport and they made it happen. Today, it is our duty to do the same. Let us bring about a future where high-speed trains glide between our great cities, where electric buses convey us cleanly around our towns, where self-driving cars roam along roads that are free of the congestion that causes so much pollution, and where a new generation of cyclists pedal safely and happily to school and work in tree-dappled sunlight on their own network of fully segregated cycle paths—[Interruption.] As we did in London.
This Government will deliver a new anatomy of British transport—a revolution in the nation’s public transport provision. It will be a sign to the world that, in the 21st century, this United Kingdom still has the vision to dream big dreams and the courage to bring those dreams about. I commend this statement to the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Once again, we see the Government taking ideas from the Labour party, adopting our language, but falling a very long way short on the substance of it. This is a Government who are unwilling to make the scale of investment needed to revive parts of this country that have been decimated by successive Conservative Governments. This is a Government who have proved themselves unable to manage infrastructure projects properly and incapable of keeping a lid on the costs.
Today’s piecemeal announcements do not add up to a serious plan to rebalance the economy or to tackle the serious climate emergency that we all face. They do not even come close to repairing the damage done by a decade of Tory Government—[Interruption.] Well, it is true—they know it. The Prime Minister laments our inadequate infrastructure, yet it is his party that has been starving the country of investment over the past 10 years, resulting in the worst regional inequality in Europe. Today, the Prime Minister is selling his announcement as a prize for parts of the midlands and the north. I simply tell him this: people in those regions to whom he promised so much in the general election are going to be sorely disappointed when they see what actually happens.
Let us take HS2, for example. The Labour party supports HS2 as a means to boost regional economies and to reduce climate emissions. It is essential for boosting rail capacity and freeing up other lines for increased freight use and so on, but we do not see why the Government should get a slap on the back for announcing that it is going ahead. After all, it is only because of the abject failure of successive Conservative Governments to keep on top of the costs that the project’s future was put in doubt in the first place.
Today’s proposed boardroom shake-up comes far too late to avoid the public having to fork out tens of billions more than was forecast in the first place. It is money that has already been wasted because of the incompetence of this Tory Government and their predecessors. The leaked Oakervee review, which apparently  will come out later, was correct to say that HS2 must be fully integrated as part of the modern railway system. It must extend to the great northern cities, linking up with Northern Powerhouse Rail, and eventually to Scotland to end the need for domestic flying in this country at the earliest possible opportunity.
We are concerned that the links to Manchester and Leeds are now under review and could, reportedly, be even downgraded. HS2 must be developed with more sensitivity to local communities and much more sensitivity to the environmental impact, particularly on modern and ancient woodlands across the country. If it is to have public support, the fares on HS2 must be affordable and comparable with the rest of the fare system on the railway network. Will the Prime Minister tell us where the trains will be built? Will those jobs and training be done in this country? What about other parts of the country such as, for example, the far south-west? When will the Prime Minister match the £2.5 billion commitment to upgrade the Great Western main line as our only train line into the south-west? We need better connectivity beyond Bristol to Devon and Cornwall.
We believe that the case is now unanswerable that our railways should be publicly owned and publicly run, to improve the service and to cut fares by 33%. Does the Prime Minister recognise that too many people are simply priced off the railways? The average commuter is now paying £3,067 for their season ticket, £873 more than when the Conservatives came into office in 2010. Why will the Prime Minister not cut the cost of travelling? Why should people in Britain have to pay so much for expensive fares—much more expensive than those in any other comparable country?
When I first raised the question of buses at Prime Minister’s Question Time, I was ridiculed by many Tory MPs and by many in our media. From the look of the front pages of our papers today, those same quarters now regard the focus on buses as a political masterstroke. Well, I will take the credit for it. It is fine. In reality, however, what the Government have said today about buses is frankly woeful. They have cherry-picked policies from the Labour manifesto but have underfunded them. That does not make up for the deep cuts since 2010. Funding for buses has fallen by £645 million a year in real terms since 2010, 3,300 routes have been cut or withdrawn, and fares have soared at two and a half times the rate of average wages.
It is councils that keep bus routes open. We need long- term funding for local authorities, which have suffered such severe cuts and now face a further £8 billion black hole over this Parliament because of underfunding. The Government are still refusing to give all councils the powers to improve local bus services and the option of public ownership of their services.
On cycling, all the Prime Minister is actually offering is 250 miles of cycle routes. Our manifesto promised 3,300 miles of cycle routes all across the country. Again, that is just plain inadequate from this Government.
Underinvestment by the Conservatives has created problems that they are forced to acknowledge, but they simply are not serious about fixing them. Is regional inequality going to be solved by 10 freeports? Is this not just a gimmick creating the storage spaces for the super-rich to dodge taxes and launder money?
The Prime Minister is clearly fond of announcing big shiny projects, such as the scheme to build a bridge over the Irish sea. Why not go the whole hog and make it a garden bridge, connected to an airport in the sea? It stands as much chance of actually being built as any of those failed projects put forward by the former Mayor of London. Or why not make it a cable car between Scotland and Northern Ireland, or better still a giant zip wire? The Prime Minister could be the first to try it out.
The saddest thing about today’s announcement is the high likelihood that so much of it will not be delivered, with the Prime Minister demanding 5% cuts in the very Departments that are supposed to carry out these policies. I fear that the communities that desperately need investment in new infrastructure will be let down when today’s headlines become yesterday’s news and they find that nothing has changed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. To help the House, I am expecting to run this statement until about 1.40 pm. Some Members may not get in, but if we all help each other we will be much nearer to getting everyone in.

Boris Johnson: I thought the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a manful attempt to conceal his fundamental agreement with what we are doing. He raised some interesting points. We are actually doing a transport revolution across the whole of the south-west, not only by investing in the sea wall at Dawlish, on the railways, but by upgrading the roads, including the A303 through the south-west. We will be doing improvements in Wales, and I think that it is high time that the Brynglas tunnels were unblocked. We encourage the Labour Government in Wales to do that. Do not forget that HS2 brings 50 minutes off the journey time to Glasgow. It is for every part of this country.
As for fares, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that fares rose twice as fast under the Labour Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) is trying to interrupt me from a sedentary position, and I remind him that the whole point of putting in another 200,000 seats in capacity is that it thereby drives down prices for the consumer. It is about competition.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made a heroic attempt to cavil and disagree with what is fundamentally a wonderful project for this country. He even tried to dislike our bus plans, I do not know quite how—[Interruption.] No, no, he claimed them for himself. I will take that; the Leader of the Opposition, as far as I understand the position, actively supports the Government’s announcement today. I congratulate him on that.

Huw Merriman: The additional £5 billion for buses and cycle links is greatly welcome. Last year, the Select Committee on Transport called for additional funding for buses and a buses strategy, both of which are coming to fruition. How will the Prime Minister ensure that the money allocated to local authorities for these projects is spent by local authorities on these projects? Will it be ring-fenced? If not, how will we really ensure that we are levelling up our public transport system?

Boris Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does for his community. I can assure him that we will ensure that when money is allocated for buses or cycling projects, it is spent on buses and cycling projects.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement. Let me be mindful of one reality. No number of prime ministerial vanity projects will ever heal the economic damage and the damage to connectivity that this Tory Brexit will inflict.
In terms of the HS2 announcement, enhanced rail infrastructure is obviously welcome, despite the indecision and waste that have been synonymous with the project. We will wait and see whether the Prime Minister is capable of getting this decision through his own party and past his own chief adviser. However, if the Prime Minister is truly committed to rail connectivity across these islands, will he engage with the Scottish Government to improve rail links from Scotland to the major cities of the north of England, such as Manchester, Newcastle and beyond? Will he also explore collaboration on the extension of the borders rail line, and what resources will be provided?
The Prime Minister may talk about his priorities of one nation; we know what nation he is talking about, and it definitely does not include the Scottish nation. Can I further ask, given his previous opposition to the Barnett formula and his party’s repeated failure to implement it fully, whether he can confirm that all the spending he is determined to engage in will be subject to Barnett consequentials? Yes or no?
I welcome the fact that the UK Government are following the lead of the Scottish Government, who announced a £500 million bus infrastructure programme last September. Given the Prime Minister’s previous association with buses, however, can he reassure the House that false advertisements will be banned from the new bus fleet?
Finally, on the bridge, this is a Prime Minister who could not even build a bridge across the Thames, so he will therefore have to forgive those of us who are sceptical that he can build one over the 20-mile expanse of the North sea. Will the Prime Minister therefore provide the estimated £20 billion for this project to the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive so they can spend those moneys on their own priorities?

Boris Johnson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will of course collaborate with the Scottish Government on projects that will be of massive benefit for the whole of our United Kingdom. On his substantive question about Barnett consequentials, yes, of course there will be Barnett consequentials as far as the buses are concerned. As for his plan to build a bridge across the North sea, I think he needs to look at the geography of the United Kingdom again. The only obstacle standing in the way of HS2 is the crackpot SNP plans to put an economic border between England and Scotland, break up the United Kingdom and have a border at Berwick.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend’s comprehensive announcement will be widely welcomed across the west midlands and in  Birmingham, and nowhere more so than in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. Will he pay tribute to the superb leadership of our West Midlands Mayor Andy Street in marshalling the arguments and in putting the case for something that will underwrite our economic prosperity for the future?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I salute the work of Andy Street and his vision for transport in the west midlands, which will be supported, encouraged and fomented by HS2.

Graham Stringer: I very much welcome the announcement as far as HS2 and the integration into HS3 are concerned. Does the Prime Minister agree that his statement could be improved and bring more immediate jobs to the north of England if, as well as building HS2 from London to the north, we also started building HS2 from the north to the south? Finally, for real ambition, would he agree that HS2 should go to Scotland, which would help to unite the two countries?

Boris Johnson: We will certainly get on with building phase 2a immediately, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that HS2 already does go to Scotland; that is one of the great advantages of the project.

Michael Fabricant: The Prime Minister will understand that Andy Street and I tend to talk about soft furnishings, as the subject tends to avoid argument, because I am less than enthusiastic about the route of HS2, which connects with neither Eurostar, Birmingham New Street nor St Pancras. However, I am delighted to hear the Prime Minister say that the organisation of HS2 Ltd will be revised. As HS2 is now going ahead, does he agree that it is important that we compensate well those people in my constituency—and in his—who will be affected by it?

Boris Johnson: The short answer is: of course.

Lilian Greenwood: The confirmation that the full HS2 route has been given the go-ahead is welcome news, and there is a strong case for building the Birmingham to east midlands part early, but if the project is to deliver on its potential for our region, we need assurances that the phase 2b Bill will receive Royal Assent in this Parliament, and that it will not be delayed further or downgraded to cut costs. Will the Prime Minister give us those assurances today?

Boris Johnson: Of course we are committed to phase 2b, but I think the hon. Member will appreciate—given what has happened in the past 10 years with phase 1—that it is vital that we use this inflection point to ensure that the taxpayer gets maximum value as we proceed.

Victoria Prentis: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who is recovering from a major operation, has asked me to thank the volunteers and donors from all over the nation who have fought against HS2 over the past 11 years. The last three years have given us a few lessons in what gracious defeat looks like, and although I remain worried by the environmental, financial  and governance issues of the project, I really do wish it all the best. I was particularly pleased to hear what the Prime Minister said about the northern section and the speed with which he intends to deliver it, and about buses and bikes. I have one ask, on taking a holistic approach to blight; if it is impossible to regrow ancient trees or to get rid of congestion where it exists, can we please compensate communities by, for example, building their local hospital?

Boris Johnson: We can certainly ensure that we restore areas where there is environmental damage—and there will of course be effects on woodlands. We will be planting 7 million trees, which is many more than will be destroyed.

Charlotte Nichols: On balance, I welcome the news that HS2 has been given the go-ahead, for the capacity gains that will benefit the north-west region and for the construction and rail supply firms in my constituency, which I hope will receive a fair shot at winning contracts associated with the project. However, my constituents in Culcheth, Croft, Risley and Hollins Green in particular will be looking for assurances that the unnecessary Golborne spur will be removed from the proposed route. This is an issue that transcends party affiliations and on which local MPs are in agreement. Will the Prime Minister give us those assurances?

Boris Johnson: I have heard representations on the Golborne spur from many people in this House, and we will certainly be looking at the matter.

Graham Brady: I welcome the increased priority for Northern Powerhouse Rail and the link from Manchester to Leeds in particular, but will my right hon. Friend ensure an urgent review of parts of the route for phase 2b, including the Golborne spur, which is entirely unnecessary and likely to cost more than £1 billion—completely wasted money? Will he also look at the fact that the station for Manchester airport is absurdly not at Manchester airport, and will instead be built on ancient woodland at Davenport Green in my constituency?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend makes excellent points about the Golborne spur and Manchester airport. We will certainly be looking at both issues.

Munira Wilson: Key to cutting carbon emissions and tackling climate change is cutting domestic flights and moving people on to our railways. That is why the HS2 announcement is to be welcomed and building a third runway at Heathrow is an act of environmental vandalism. Will the Prime Minister now prove his credentials on climate change, make good on his promise of lying down in front of the bulldozers, or—far more simply—just cancel the third runway?

Boris Johnson: I see no bulldozers at present, nor any immediate prospect of them arriving.

Pauline Latham: Local authorities have limited resources to deliver their new local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. Would  my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister support the delivery of parts of those plans through appropriate local charities, such as the Derwent Valley Trust in Derbyshire, that are capable of implementing key sections of the network?

Boris Johnson: Yes. It will be very important to collaborate with appropriate delivery vehicles, such as the charity that my hon. Friend mentions.

Meg Hillier: It is good to have certainty over HS2, but the Prime Minister has unveiled a raft of big spending projects. Where is the money going to come from?

Boris Johnson: The money is coming through the hard work and effort of the British people. This Government will manage our finances prudently and ensure that the economy is not wrecked, as it was by the last Labour Government.

Robert Goodwill: HS2 will connect with the Elizabeth line and Heathrow airport at Old Oak Common station—a station that will become every bit as famous as Victoria or Waterloo. But Old Oak Common will be neither old nor common, so does the Prime Minister agree that it should have a name that is iconic and in keeping with its importance—maybe after the first woman Prime Minister of our country?

Boris Johnson: That is a brilliant idea. Let us try that one out on the Mayor of London.

Ed Miliband: May I ask the Prime Minister about the prospects for change in relation to the eastern leg of phase 2b? The original HS2 vision was to serve and regenerate our towns, but towns in South Yorkshire are facing all of the pain and none, or very little, of the gain. May I commend to him the HS2 North concept, which local campaigners came up with—they got there first—and which has an integrated plan to help towns such as Doncaster and Mexborough?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Member makes a very good point on behalf of Doncaster. We are certainly looking at the plan that he mentions.

Bill Cash: The Prime Minister knows how bitterly disappointed my constituents in Staffordshire will be about the decision. May I simply ask him, when he is considering the question of review, to include phase 2a from Birmingham to Crewe—and the rest of that part of the constituency, which is going to be so badly affected? We need a proper link with Handsacre to ensure that Stoke and Stafford are properly serviced. Does he understand that, and will he do everything to ensure that we are kept in the review?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely; on Handsacre, my hon. Friend has my full support.

Hilary Benn: I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement but, given what he has said about reviewing phase 2b, could he tell the people of Leeds when he now expects the new HS2 station to open?

Boris Johnson: We will get it going as soon as possible.

Andrew Jones: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on this statement? He is so right when he says that the economy of the north needs both east-west and north-south connectivity. Does he agree that the challenge we face in transport is not, as sometimes articulated, between local and national investment—what we need is both?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely. We cannot have the gains of one without the other. Local productivity will not be boosted unless we improve national connectivity up the spine of this country, and that is what HS2 is all about.

Lucy Powell: I strongly welcome the announcement today on HS2, but let us be clear: the question mark was written by the Prime Minister and his Government, and it should not have been written at all. Under the terms of the review we are now seeing, can he ensure that the full benefits of NPR and HS2 are fully integrated at Manchester Piccadilly station and that no stone is left unturned in making sure that that can happen?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I certainly can.

Eddie Hughes: Infrastructure costs are frequently driven up by unforeseen ground conditions. Can the Prime Minister remind the House of the commitment by this Government to increase spending on research and development, such as at Birmingham University, which is working on quantum technology to map those ground conditions?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. He is entirely right. HS2’s investment will not just drive the construction sector—it will drive the economy across this country, including in higher education.

Jonathan Edwards: Last time I looked on a map, London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds were all in England. So can the Prime Minister explain why Scotland and Northern Ireland get a 100% Barnett rating from HS2 while Wales gets nought per cent?

Boris Johnson: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well from looking at the map, north Wales will benefit from the Crewe link. I might say to the representative from Wales that it is high time that the Welsh Labour Government got on and delivered the M4 bypass at the Brynglas tunnels. If they will not do it, we in this Government will.

Andrew Bridgen: HS2 is unloved and unwanted, and has been grossly mismanaged. It very adversely affects my constituents. Does the Prime Minister appreciate my and my constituents’ concerns that this could well be an albatross around this Government’s and the country’s neck, and does it not set the bar very low for the delivery of infrastructure projects on time and on budget by all future Governments?

Boris Johnson: Every great infrastructure project is opposed by people at this stage. The M25 had 39 separate planning inquiries. The Treasury was against the M25, and, I seem to remember, delivering the Olympics, and it tried to get rid of Crossrail. Every single infrastructure project is opposed at these critical moments. We have got to have the guts and the foresight to drive this through.

Chi Onwurah: In London, thanks to Sadiq Khan’s Hopper fare, I can travel across the entire Greater London area on two buses—up to 30 miles—for £1.50. In Newcastle, £1.50 will barely get me four stops up West Road. Will this funding bring north-eastern bus fares into line with those in London, or is this all bluff and bluster signifying nothing?

Boris Johnson: I remind the hon. Lady that bus ridership has fallen catastrophically under the current Labour Mayor because of his mismanagement of the system. Crime has risen precipitately. We will ensure not only that we drive down crime, in spite of what the current Labour Mayor is doing, but that we have fantastic, cheaper, greener, cleaner buses across the country.

Mary Robinson: I welcome this statement, particularly the decision to start treating the local rail improvements under HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail as one integrated masterplan—High Speed North. As the design stage is brought forward, how are we going to ensure that local business leaders and communities are included in deciding what is best for their area locally in terms of this high-speed rail project?

Boris Johnson: We will make sure that businesses and communities are fully involved in the preparations for High Speed North.

George Howarth: The devil, as the Prime Minister well knows, is in the detail. May I cautiously, though, welcome the announcement on HS2, and the announcement about linking up the northern powerhouse great cities? In the course of that, he said, “and Liverpool”. Could he give us some indication as to what he meant by that?

Boris Johnson: That is at the next stage of the consultation.

Theo Clarke: The Government have ended uncertainty for those who want HS2, but will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also end uncertainty for my constituents in Stafford who have waited years for their houses to be bought and for compensation to be paid?

Boris Johnson: Yes, we will do just that. I apologise to everybody for the uncertainty that has been involved.

Clive Betts: I welcome the commitment both to HS2 and to Northern Powerhouse Rail, but in neither case did the Prime Minister mention Sheffield. Could he therefore confirm that the Sheffield loop will go ahead as planned in HS2, and that the Northern Powerhouse Rail improvements are about not just Manchester to Leeds but Manchester to Sheffield as well?

Boris Johnson: We are proceeding with the whole of the HS2 plan, but, as the House will appreciate, given what has gone before, it is right that we interrogate the methods and costs as we go forward with phase 2b.

Jeremy Wright: My right hon. Friend knows that I do not agree with the decision he has reached on HS2, but I respect the fact that it was a difficult decision and I am grateful to him for listening to both sides of the argument before he made it. Now that it is made, is it not right that HS2 Ltd needs not just to compensate more swiftly and more fairly than it has, but to communicate better than it has with those affected by the line? Will he make that specifically part of the remit of the new HS2 Minister?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The record of HS2 in engaging and communicating with local people has been woeful, and we will ensure that that changes from now on.

Gavin Newlands: The Prime Minister said that it was the SNP that was standing in the way of high-speed rail to Scotland; in fact, it is his Government who are doing that. So can he tell us precisely: what year will the line be extended to Scotland?

Boris Johnson: I am delighted, in the first place, that the hon. Gentleman supports high-speed rail and that he supports HS2. As I say, the only obstacle to that great project is the deranged SNP plan to install an economic barrier—including an immigration barrier, for all we know—between England and Scotland.

Amanda Solloway: I am delighted by the statement today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it supports growth not only in the north but in the midlands, including the constituents and businesses of Derby North?

Boris Johnson: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for her support. You can go to the midlands and see the investment already flooding in as a result of HS2. Let us turbo-charge that now.

Alison McGovern: It is kind of funny, in a way, to see the Prime Minister come here to gleefully re-announce a project that he himself and his office tried to put a stop to. But while he is in train set-building mode, can I draw his attention to the Wrexham to Bidston line that would connect north Wales and Liverpool? Will he put some extra investment in there so that we can speed up improvements?

Boris Johnson: We will certainly examine very carefully the proposal that the hon. Lady makes, and whether it qualifies under our £1.5 billion Beeching plan.

Craig Whittaker: As my right hon. Friend knows, Calder Valley has been hit again by flooding, with the third most devastating flood in seven and a half years. Getting across the Pennines is a struggle at the best of times, let alone after flooding, so the news about Northern Powerhouse Rail is fabulous for us in Calder Valley. But can he assure the House that we will not wait for HS2b to be determined before we start Northern Powerhouse Rail?

Boris Johnson: First, I extend my commiserations to all the people of Calder Valley who have experienced flooding. We all know how traumatic a flood can be. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly allow no delay in pushing ahead with all the branches of the project.

Stephen Kinnock: The HS2 project, albeit somewhat shambolically handled, is great news for England, but it shows once again the contempt in which this Government hold the people of Wales. The entire budget for electrifying the main line to Swansea would be less than 1% of the vast sums that are being talked about today. So will the Prime Minister commit today to electrifying the main line to Swansea, or will he continue to hold the people of Wales in contempt?

Boris Johnson: As I just said to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), north Wales will benefit from the line to Crewe. We have already electrified the line to Cardiff. I urge the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to get on to his friends in the Welsh Labour Government, who squandered £144 million on a study for the bypass of the M4, which they then decided not to do.

Stephen Hammond: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today, particularly the announcement on HS2 and the review of the governance arrangements. Can he confirm that he will use this as an opportunity to embed the skills we need to deliver that infrastructure and open academies such as the tunnelling academy he opened during the Crossrail construction period?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I well remember working with my hon. Friend on that project and many others. This will drive jobs and apprenticeships for young people for a generation to come.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the Prime Minister’s investment in the skeleton of the UK economy—the thigh bone, the knee bone and the ankle bone, to use his words—but he has forgotten about the red hand of Ulster, which appears to be detached from his plan. Could he outline what procurement and project opportunities there will be for Northern Ireland, including a commitment to a bridge between Northern Ireland and the UK, which would improve the sinews of the arm and the attachment of the hand to the rest of the body?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman’s characteristic optimism is in marked contrast to the negativity that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition. Of course there will be opportunities for procurement in Northern Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere. Buses spring to mind.

Rachel Maclean: Redditch is only a short hop away from the HS2 terminus in Birmingham, so I welcome today’s announcement. Does the Prime Minister agree that, because my constituency has the highest rate of people going to work by bus, Redditch is the perfect candidate for Britain’s first all-electric bus town?

Boris Johnson: What a brilliant idea!

Jim McMahon: This is welcome, if delayed, news, in particular for Manchester and Greater Manchester. Will the Prime Minister ensure that metro Mayors and council leaders are hard-wired into the review? Will he also consider starting at Manchester and meeting in the middle, to ensure that we get the benefits early on, particularly for education, skills and jobs in my town?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will indeed be working with the metro Mayors and are already consulting them on exactly that.

Andrew Percy: We have had the fluffy end of the lollipop for too long in the north on transport funding, so I am made up by this decision on HS2 and HS3, and I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). Will the Prime Minister look at the operator service option fund for underutilised lines? There are just two services on the Goole-Snaith-Leeds line every day, which is not enough to allow the people of Leeds to come and enjoy Goole, so can he look at that and ensure that those lines are better used?

Boris Johnson: I would be only too happy to look in detail at the Goole-Leeds line and see what we can do to assist—we will suck it and see, as they say.

Catherine McKinnell: Newcastle and the north-east need this infrastructure investment in both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail without any further delay. Will the Prime Minister make an immediately deliverable improvement to our national infrastructure, to ensure that the north-east and Newcastle are NPR and HS2-ready, by investing in our east coast main line, which needs urgent infrastructure investment between York and Newcastle?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and we are indeed upgrading the digital signalling on the east coast main line.

Mark Pawsey: The Prime Minister spoke about the “spine” of our rail network, which is currently provided by the west coast main line. The upgrade of that line a few years ago led to many businesses being attracted to Rugby. What reassurance can he provide to them that, with HS2 bypassing Rugby, we will retain fast services on a well-maintained railway?

Boris Johnson: I have looked at that issue, and I am convinced that the existing capacity will continue to be extremely important and drive jobs and investment in Rugby, where my hon. Friend and I opened a fantastic electric taxi factory.

Mike Kane: Despite going under my house, HS2 will reduce journey times from Manchester airport in my constituency to London from two hours 24 minutes to 59 minutes, opening up a plethora of opportunities for the poor people of the south-east and the great city of Manchester. The Prime Minister dodged the question from my hon. Friends the  Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). If he wants to level up and have a northern powerhouse, why does he not start building the line from Manchester down?

Boris Johnson: We are building Northern Powerhouse Rail as fast as we can, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that project is not in the state of readiness of the Birmingham to London route.

Edward Timpson: How do we realise more benefits for towns such as Winsford in my constituency by integrating Northern Powerhouse Rail, the conventional rail network and HS2? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Cheshire salt mines and the threat of sinkholes will be considered as part of the next review?

Boris Johnson: I can certainly confirm that the threat of sinkholes from the Cheshire salt mines will be considered as part of the review.

Judith Cummins: I welcome the announcement that the northern section of HS2 will go ahead because, crucially, it will be integrated with NPR. As the Prime Minister said, this country has been held back by inadequate infrastructure, so does he agree that Northern Powerhouse Rail must include a city centre stop in Bradford?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for the representation she makes on behalf of Bradford. I see the point that she makes, and we will consult on that issue shortly.

Kieran Mullan: I welcome the announcement today—the Prime Minister has well and truly swept the leaves off the line of transport infrastructure investment in this country. I know that jobs and businesses will benefit not in London but locally, in Crewe and Nantwich. When it comes to bus investment, can we ensure that local residents have a strong voice in deciding where the new buses go and how often they go there?

Boris Johnson: Of course, it is vital that the expansion of local bus services meets local demand. In my experience, there is no shortage of local demand in most parts of the country.

Caroline Lucas: HS2 is a dire reflection on this Government’s environmental credentials, with the destruction of 100 ancient woodlands and a miserably small modal shift of just 5% of passengers who would otherwise fly or drive. Indeed, the Government’s own figures show that HS2 does not cut carbon emissions. If it is to go ahead, surely it should be required to meet at the very least the European average for high-speed rail modal shift, which is 15% for cars and 30% for planes —why does it not?

Boris Johnson: We have just announced the biggest ever package in history for zero-carbon buses and possibly hydrogen buses as well. HS2 is the most low-carbon, efficient way of getting around this country. Will nothing please them?

Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate the Prime Minister on grasping the nettle and building this infrastructure in the north, which is really welcome and delivers on our manifesto promises. One reason for the rising costs in Leeds is the incompetence of Leeds City Council—with a Labour leader, who, quite frankly, could not organise an event at one of the local breweries—which is putting the station in a totally inappropriate place. As part of the review, will my right hon. Friend look properly at where the station is located and the ability to use existing rail routes and infrastructure?

Boris Johnson: There will be a review—I must be clear with the House. We will be going forward with the whole programme, but we will ensure that we get proper value and proper political leadership and grip of the whole programme.

Alex Norris: For four decades, the east midlands economy has been losing skilled work, which has caused extraordinary damage to our communities. HS2 is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reverse that decline and add tens of thousands of skilled jobs to our community. The Prime Minister has taken a difficult but welcome decision. Can he reassure east midlands people that there will not be any unnecessary delay to HS2b and that Midlands Engine Rail will be woven into the scheme?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I can.

Paul Howell: I particularly welcome the Northern Powerhouse Rail connection with HS2. Will the Prime Minister look at the procurement process and ensure that UK-based companies, such as Hitachi Rail in my constituency, have a real chance of getting the business out of it? Can it be done as quickly as possible, so that they have an opportunity to plan?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. He has lobbied me personally several times on that issue, and I can assure him that the plant and the jobs in question will be uppermost in our minds.

Stephen Flynn: At the last count, HS2 was projected to cost the city of Aberdeen £220 million. Based on that figure, does the Prime Minister agree that HS2 will be an economic disaster for my city?

Boris Johnson: On the contrary, HS2 will shorten journey times across the whole United Kingdom, in particular Scotland. Indeed, as I said earlier, there will be Barnett consequentials following the fantastic announcements that we have made today about buses and other modes of transport.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement and vision to power up the north through transport. Historically, Scunthorpe steel has been used for many national infrastructure projects such as the two HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers. Does he agree that we should use our world-class steel such as that we produce in Scunthorpe for such projects?

Boris Johnson: I pay tribute to the workers of British Steel for what they do. Most of our train tracks come from British Steel, whether in Scunthorpe or  elsewhere, and we will do our utmost, notwithstanding the difficulties that the plant faces, to ensure that that remains the case in future.

Matt Western: When we first talked about HS2 10 years ago, we were not talking about a climate emergency. Given that the landscape has changed in that respect, the Government should invest significantly more than proposed in sub-regional transport systems such as buses and cycle routes, as the French and continentals are doing.

Boris Johnson: I think I can say without fear of contradiction that I have built more cycle lanes than anyone else in the House—that was not always popular—but that is nothing compared with what we are about to do. The investment that we are about to make in buses is absolutely colossal, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman finds grounds for criticism.

Greg Clark: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s attention to the spine of the country, but will he apply his orthopaedic talents to what should be the muscular limb that connects London to Hastings, as it will take longer to get to Hastings than the hour that it will take to get to Manchester in future?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I shall certainly examine the London to Hastings route. I do not know which part of the anatomy it should be, but it is vital to our nation’s prosperity, whatever it is.

Chris Bryant: Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that there will not be a single extra penny for Wales as a result of today’s announcements? Before he gives me any bluster about anything else, the truth of the matter is that they promised that they were going to electrify the line all the way to Swansea. They said that by 2017 the valleys lines to my constituency would be electrified. None of that came to pass. All we want is a new railway line in the Rhondda Fach, and to open the tunnel from Blaencwm to Blaengwynfi. Will he promise that today?

Boris Johnson: As I have told the House, we have electrified the line up to Cardiff. When it comes to tunnels—it is not a widely known fact—the Welsh Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supports, spent £144 million on a study on whether or not to open the Brynglas tunnels. Open the tunnels and unblock the muscles of the Welsh dragon.

James Cartlidge: I very much welcome the statement, particularly my right hon. Friend’s commitment to a more convenient ticketing system. Many of my constituents commute into London three or four days a week for a better work-life balance, but find that they have no choice but to pay the cost of a full-time season ticket. I urge him to ensure that the trial of part-time season tickets is rolled out nationwide so that we have a ticketing system that suits the modern-day reality of our flexible labour force.

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport assures me that that is indeed his intention.

Emma Hardy: We have had 10 years of rail downgrades in Hull, from cancelling electrification to older trains taking longer to arrive at their destination. While I would like to welcome Northern Powerhouse Rail, I am slightly disappointed that whenever the Prime Minister mentions it he does so between Leeds and Manchester, as we all know that it begins in Hull. From now on, I would like him to talk about it coming from Hull, and will he tell me when we will see the benefits in my constituency?

Boris Johnson: The road to Hull is paved with good intentions, and we intend to build it. We will make sure that we have Hull fully as part of our vision for High Speed North, and I am sure that the hon. Lady’s contribution will be warmly welcomed.

Miriam Cates: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement, and I agree that we need both buses and trains to connect our communities. However, can he reassure my constituents in Penistone and Stocksbridge, which has many rural areas, that investment in buses will benefit our rural towns and villages, not just our big cities?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is indeed the point of the investment in buses. Everyone knows from talking to their constituents that a decent, reliable bus route can be absolutely transformative of their lives and of their kids’ prospects, so we will do that across the country.

Andrew Slaughter: With Birmingham airport 30 minutes from Old Oak we will not need a third runway at Heathrow, I am sure the Prime Minister agrees. However, will HS2 terminate at Old Oak for three years while Euston is under construction, as the press are reporting and, if so, what will he do about the disruption and overcrowding at Old Oak? It is already the biggest development and an interchange site, and is very happy with its historic name, by the way.

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the name of Old Oak Common. We will make sure that we take control properly of the management of that fantastic project. There is huge potential for success at Old Oak. Indeed, it presents a potential link between the great west line and HS2. We will also ensure that we take proper control of what is happening at Euston which, he would agree, has been a shambles. We have a special purpose vehicle established to get the maximum value for the taxpayer from that project.

Simon Hoare: I welcome entirely the statement by my right hon. Friend. Anyone who is interested in increasing productivity and global Britain could not fail to do so. In response to the question that he was asked a moment ago, would he take into account, with regard to rural bus provision, the fact that social mobility in our rural areas needs a boost? These buses can help to achieve that. When taking funding decisions, will rural sparsity be taken into account as a trigger?

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course. Rural need and rural sparsity will certainly be taken into account, as we will take into account the needs of all towns and communities. It is not only that these buses will help  people to get to work or wherever they need to go; they give businesses the certainty and confidence that they can invest in that town, in the knowledge that they can employ people who can commute easily.

Kate Green: I welcome today’s announcements, both on rail and on buses. In relation to buses in Greater Manchester, can we have an urgent decision on funding for the clean freight and clean bus funds?

Boris Johnson: These will be the cleanest, greenest buses that the country has ever seen, but we will certainly make use of the clean bus fund.

Greg Smith: May I urge my right hon. Friend and, indeed, anyone who seeks to celebrate the HS2 decision to keep central in their mind the blight that it will bring to communities up and down the route, not just on the landscape but on people’s lives? Throughout the enabling works so far, people have been left in severe financial hardship. Can we have an independent body with real power to scrutinise every decision that HS2 Ltd makes?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is entirely right in what he says. I speak as an MP for a seat on the route. As in his constituency, thousands of people have faced confusion and uncertainty about HS2, and it is vital that they are treated properly, which is why the construction commission will look at making sure that everyone is treated fairly.

Alison Thewliss: The Scottish environmental journalist Rob Edwards has warned since 1995 about the munitions dumps by the Ministry of Defence in Beaufort’s Dyke, the deepest point in the north channel of the Irish sea, and the exact route of the Prime Minister’s latest fantasy bridge. Will the Prime Minister abandon the project and give the money to the Northern Irish and Scottish Governments directly so that we can invest in priorities for Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than his fantasy plans?

Boris Johnson: We will bring forward proposals in due course.

Harriett Baldwin: As a west midlands MP, I warmly welcome today’s announcement, and I thank the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary for working with West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street. Will he confirm, as we move towards net zero, that the extra capacity on our railways will allow lorries carrying freight to come off our motorways?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is one of the many advantages of the proposals before the House today.

Rupa Huq: As a nearby west London MP, may I ask the Prime Minister over to my patch, where HS2, Crossrail and Heathrow are already impacting on lives, to make the much promised visit—his officials will know that I have been promised this for years now—to see the reality on the ground of what a super-development opportunity area looks like for people who tend to be forgotten between historic Euston and countryside beauty?

Boris Johnson: I have fond memories of walking the streets of the hon. Lady’s constituency and listening to her lobby me in person; no doubt I shall be doing so again all too soon.

Jason McCartney: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we now have a wonderful opportunity to win hearts and minds on High Speed North by getting thousands of SMEs involved in procurement and tens of thousands of young apprentices trained up, and the Huddersfield University Institute of Railway Research doing innovation and, most importantly of all, fully integrating it with Northern Powerhouse Rail, linking the northern cities and my local town of Huddersfield?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend speaks eloquently and passionately for Huddersfield, which is among the many towns and cities that will benefit from HS2.

Wera Hobhouse: To announce 250 miles of new cycle routes as a big green infrastructure investment is a complete joke; it will mean only a few extra miles per local authority, and we cyclists know what they look like. If the Prime Minister agrees that we need many more continuous segregated cycle routes, how can he begin to explain how 250 miles across the country will cut it?

Boris Johnson: This is just the beginning.

Vicky Ford: I am delighted to hear that when it comes to buses and bikes we are all going Dutch. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that rapidly growing areas like Essex and the east of England get our fair share of the funding?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely.

Ruth Cadbury: To double the rate of cycling from 2% to 4% of all trips will, according to Government figures, require £5 billion-worth of funding at least, so how much of today’s announcement of £5 billion for buses, cycling and walking will actually be spent on cycling?

Boris Johnson: In the first stage, £350 million.

Wuhan Coronavirus

Matthew Hancock: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the response to the Wuhan coronavirus.
I have laid an instrument before the House to confirm the power we have taken to isolate those at risk of spreading the virus, and if necessary to keep them isolated as part of our belt-and-braces approach to protecting the public. The powers are proportionate and will help us slow down transmission of the virus and make it easier for NHS and public health staff to do their jobs.
The clinical advice about the risks to the public has not changed, and remains moderate. As of today, eight people in England have tested positive for coronavirus; all are receiving expert care from the NHS, which is well prepared and equipped to deal with this kind of situation. Contact tracing of the first four cases has been undertaken rapidly and is now complete, while tracing for the latest four cases is ongoing. This contact tracing itself identified five of the cases, a tribute to the skill and tenacity of Public Health England staff, as well as finding a further five British nationals in France, who have also tested positive for the virus. They are now receiving treatment, and the Foreign Office is following up with consular support.
On Sunday, 105 more British nationals and dependants from Hubei province landed safely at Brize Norton. They are now in isolation facilities at Kents Hill park in Milton Keynes and are receiving all the necessary medical attention. I want to pay tribute to the Foreign Office and the MOD, as well as Milton Keynes Council and Milton Keynes hospital and my own team, for their hard work and efficiency in ensuring that this all went smoothly. These steps are, of course, in addition to those for people now reaching the end of their isolation on the Wirral.
Turning to the efforts to contain the outbreak in China, the Foreign Office is advising against all travel to Hubei province and all but essential travel to mainland China. Last week, we issued new advice to all travellers returning to the UK from China, Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. That advice is clear: if you develop symptoms of cough, fever or shortness of breath, you should call NHS 111 and immediately self-isolate for 14 days, even if symptoms are minor; if you have returned from Hubei, you should self-isolate and contact NHS 111 even if you have no symptoms.
My officials discussed the incubation period with the World Health Organisation this morning. The current evidence shows that a 14-day incubation period remains appropriate. We will continue to monitor emerging evidence closely with our international partners.
As I said last week, dealing with this disease is a marathon, not a sprint. The situation will get worse before it gets better. We will be guided by the science. Be in no doubt: we will do everything that is effective to tackle this virus and keep people safe. We are investing £40 million in vaccine research and are working with international efforts on therapeutics, and today I can announce to the House the immediate launch of a  capital facility to support any urgent works the NHS needs for the coronavirus response, such as the creation of further isolation areas and other necessary facilities.
Finally, there are actions each and every one of us can take—simple but effective steps like washing hands and using tissues. We will take all necessary precautions to keep the public safe, and I commend this statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and advance notice of the regulations and steps he was going to invoke yesterday.
Our thoughts must be with all those diagnosed with novel coronavirus and those in quarantine, and I place on record again our thanks to NHS and Public Health England staff and all other staff involved in responding to the outbreak.
On the specific issue of the quarantine arrangements, I understand the approach the Government have taken, and the Secretary of State will recall that in response to last week’s statement I asked him what would happen should an evacuee wish to leave Arrowe Park. In response he understandably reminded the House that evacuees had signed contracts that effectively offered passage back to the UK in return for compliance with the Government’s quarantine arrangements. However, given that questions were raised around how practically enforceable those contracts were, and indeed wider questions about what was allowed under human rights legislation, I understand why the Secretary of State has invoked the regulations that he is entitled to do under the Public Health Acts. He has our support.
Quarantine arrangements must be seen to be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law, and enforcement of those quarantine arrangements, including with powers of restraint where necessary, must be fully transparent, and the rights and freedoms of the quarantined evacuees must be fully understood so as to ensure they are treated with dignity and respect. We agree that a legislative framework for this is far preferable to the ad hoc contracts that were the original basis for the quarantines.
In order to maintain public confidence in these arrangements, that framework must be understood and scrutinised by Parliament. With that in mind, on the instrument the Secretary of State laid before the House yesterday, at what point will the House get an opportunity to consider the regulations and will that be on the Floor of the House? I appreciate that the Secretary of State is not one of the business managers—although there is going to be a Government reshuffle so who knows by the end of the week—but if he can give us some clarity at this point on that, we will appreciate it.
Turning to the UK response more generally, can the Secretary of State tell the House if he is asking clinical commissioning groups and trusts to make plans should this outbreak turn into a pandemic in the coming months? What work is he doing to ensure that the local plans are robust, and can he guarantee they will be fully resourced? What communications have directors of public health in local authorities received and how will they continue to be kept informed?
Is the Secretary of State confident that NHS 111 has sufficient capacity to deal with increased numbers of calls? Will community health trusts, which I understand  will be tasked with visiting suspected patients in their homes to carry our swab tests, be given extra resources to scale up capacity, or will they be expected to fund this extra work from their existing baselines?
With respect to the capital facility the Secretary of State has announced, I understand that hospitals are being given specialist pods to quarantine patients and access to this facility. Can he tell us whether GPs have the necessary equipment and resources to cope with patients who may present with novel coronavirus? Will they be able to apply for this capital facility?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s advice on travel arrangements, not least with school holidays coming up next week. Many people will want clarification. Can he assure us that Foreign Office advice is fully aligned with Public Health England advice, and tell us what monitoring arrangements are in place at airports for flights returning not just from China but other places across the world where there has been a coronavirus outbreak?
Finally, can the Secretary of State update the House on international efforts to share research and intelligence, as well as attempts to find a vaccine, and a timescale? He will know that there is a World Health Organisation summit today, for example.
On behalf of the official Opposition, we again thank all our hardworking NHS staff, particularly those on the frontline, some of whom have been diagnosed with coronavirus. We thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House, and reiterate our hope that he will continue to keep the House updated in the weeks ahead.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for the support of the Opposition for the measures we have taken. The best way to deal with an outbreak like this is on a bipartisan basis. The approach the House has taken has thus far helped to enable as efficient and capable a response as possible to what is obviously a very difficult situation. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the use of the powers we brought into force yesterday must be proportionate. Enforcement, too, needs to be reasonable. That is a very important consideration.
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about NHS 111. We will ensure that NHS 111 services have support available. We have plans in place to expand support for those taking the calls on 111 if necessary. Thus far, we have not had to do that. Compared with the huge scale of the millions of calls to NHS 111 that are made, the number concerning those who think they may have coronavirus is still relatively small, but of course we stand ready to do that if necessary.
On timing, as far as I understand it business managers have not yet scheduled the debate on the affirmative procedure for the statutory instruments I presented yesterday. They are made affirmative—as in, they become law—the moment they are signed and thus are law now. They remain in force, with the requirement for Parliament to debate and pass them within 28 days. We will ensure that that happens. They then stay in force for two years, or until the end of the public health emergency is declared.
The hon. Gentleman asked about links with the local authority in Brighton. That is an incredibly important question. I understand that the links have been very close and that the public health officers in Brighton have been working very closely with Public Health England. I thank them, as well.
The hon. Gentleman asked about access to capital for GPs. If GP facilities or other parts of the NHS need capital upgrades, we will of course look at that. In the first instance, though, it is very important that people do not go immediately to their GP, but rather call NHS 111. If they do go to A&E, we will ensure that pods are available so that people are separated from the vast majority of those going to A&E, as we do not want them to be contaminated.
The advice remains absolutely clear: if you suspect that you may have coronavirus, call 111 and do not leave home until you have spoken to a clinician.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Health Secretary for the way he has handled this crisis. We are all very aware that appearances before this House are only a tiny fraction of the huge amount of work going on behind the scenes. I also thank the shadow Health Secretary for the non-partisan way his party is approaching this public health crisis.
One of the most distressing things we see on TV in relation to what is happening in China in the affected province is people being denied basic hospital treatment because the hospitals are full, whether because of coronavirus or another illness they happen to have. Will the Health Secretary give some idea of the preparations that are being made to protect people who will continue to have urgent illnesses, such as cancer, which will continue to need to be dealt with very promptly, even in such a situation as the virus exploding in the UK?

Matthew Hancock: This is a very important strand of our prepare and mitigate policy to ensure that should things get worse here the NHS is fully prepared. The NHS has the capability now to cope with the very highest level of intensity and isolation with 50 cases, and the capability to expand that to 500 cases without an impact on the wider work of the NHS. If the number of cases gets bigger, we will of course need to take further steps. As my right hon. Friend knows from his time in my shoes, extensive plans are already in place for how they should happen if we reach that eventuality.

Philippa Whitford: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and we support the use of powers to maintain isolation, as they are critical for the health and safety of other people in the country. I would, however, also support their being transparent and proportionate. I also welcome that the four chief medical officers across the UK are working together on this issue.
The Government are advising symptomatic returnees from the high-risk countries, but should that not be all people returning from high-risk countries? We simply do not know what the prodromal part of the incubation period is, nor how infectious someone actually is before they have any symptoms at all. I have to say that I was surprised to see the bus drivers, who were driving those on their way to quarantine, sitting in the front seat in shirt sleeves besides someone in full hazmat gear. That seemed to me to send out a rather strange message.
It is also advised that only those from Hubei province should self-isolate even if asymptomatic, but we see from the cases in France that this is spreading very  quickly, and we already have 40,000 cases across 28 countries. Therefore, if anyone is flying and going through airports, there is the risk of spread, from simply being on an aeroplane with someone coming from China.
I welcome the funding for vaccine research and the expansion to 12 test centres across the four nations, but what publicity campaign is planned to educate the public upfront not to go to their GP and not to go to accident and emergency, where they will actually spread it to someone else? I understand that the information is there on the Scottish NHS inform system or 111, but if someone is not looking maybe we need to be proactive about the message.
Finally, the UK is no longer part of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. While we are able to take part in the early warning and reporting system during transition, we are no longer part of the decision making or central procurement of vaccines. How much of that system is the UK still able to be part of at the moment during transition and in the long term? Does that perhaps raise up the agenda some of the areas of co-operation that need to be sought with European Union agencies?

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for the broad support expressed by the hon. Lady. I am also very grateful for the work of the devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the work of the four CMOs across the UK, who have worked very closely together on what is a public health emergency.
To answer the hon. Lady’s specific questions, all those returning from any of the named countries, which I reiterated in my statement, should, if they are symptomatic, self-isolate. We are taking all measures that are deemed to be effective on the clinical advice. As a clinician herself, I am sure she will recognise the importance of following the epidemiological science wherever possible to make sure we take steps that will be effective and proportionate to the scale of the challenge.
The hon. Lady also asked about the monitoring of those returning on flights. We have enhanced monitoring in place for all those returning, as I said. She also asked about a publicity campaign to get the message across about what people can do—people should wash their hands and follow the advice in the “catch it, bin it, kill it” tissue-use campaign—as well as the important message that the first thing that someone should do is call 111. We have a very significant publicity campaign and I will double-check that that is being co-ordinated with the devolved authorities—I think it is but I will double-check, because that is very important.
Finally, to answer the point about the bus drivers, that decision was again taken on clinical advice to promote the safety of the passengers and balance all the considerations that needed to be taken into account.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I will spend approximately 20 more minutes on this statement, so I urge brevity in questions and answers.

Maria Miller: The Secretary of State said that this public health emergency is likely to get worse before it gets better, so will he reassure the  House today that we are well prepared for any new cases in the UK and that the NHS has the capacity to cope with those new cases, wherever they occur across the country?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course I can give that assurance. We have been clear all along that we have expected cases and that we are doing everything we can, but we also need to prepare for what might happen in future.

Angela Eagle: Given that we are now experiencing spread between people who have not been to China, as the Brighton cases show, will the Health Secretary say something about how people can distinguish between the ordinary symptoms of flu and the novel coronavirus symptoms, because China is now not the only lexicon?

Matthew Hancock: That is a very good point. People should follow the clinical advice for the symptoms they have, with there being, of course, a much higher risk if they have travelled to one of the affected areas. In that case, they should call 111 and present, and have the test. The testing is available precisely to distinguish the difference, because it is not reasonable to ask ordinary members of the public to know the difference between an old coronavirus and the novel coronavirus, or indeed, between flu and coronavirus.

James Davies: Will my right hon. Friend provide an update on the likely timescales for the development of a vaccine for Wuhan coronavirus, and on Britain’s contribution to that?

Matthew Hancock: We have put £40 million into the global and domestic efforts to find a vaccine, and the work got under way fast. That work is progressing, but it takes time not just to develop a vaccine, but to ensure that it is assured and safe to use. It is in the nature of these things—because of incubation periods and the nature of the science—that it does take time.

Clive Efford: Should the outbreak become more widespread, will the Secretary of State say what advice he is preparing for employers, because many people, such as those on zero-hours contracts, will be severely financially penalised, which will create a big incentive for them to turn up for work when they are feeling ill? Will he say what preparations he is making for employers to avoid those circumstances?

Matthew Hancock: That could become an important consideration in due course, but I am glad to say that, at the moment, the impact on employment is very small, because we have only eight cases. However, I will certainly take that into consideration.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for updating the House today. I think that that statement will reassure my constituents, some of whom have contacted me with concerns about the way that the disease is spreading. Will he continue to keep the House updated, particularly as infection control measures are rolled out, should they be necessary?

Matthew Hancock: I hope that I have demonstrated my willingness to keep the House informed. In the way that we respond to these public health emergencies, it is  incredibly important that we are clear, straightforward and transparent with the public. The ability to communicate in what is inevitably a fast-moving situation is always a challenge, but I pay tribute to Members of the House for responding—and probing, of course—in a reasonable and sensible way, and to large swathes of the media, who have reported on the coronavirus outbreak in a way that is essentially guided by the science.

Caroline Lucas: In Brighton and Hove, our thoughts are with those who have tested positive in our city and those linked to them who are in isolation. The Secretary of State will know that there are real concerns locally, with another health centre closing today. People need and want more timely and accurate information—not just about washing hands and tissue use, vital though that is, but about such things as what self-isolation actually looks like. I think we need a much higher-profile public health campaign, so what steps is he taking to work across Departments—including with the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and so on—to proactively disseminate key public health messages without causing panic or compromising patient confidentiality? Will he also assure me that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular department is proactively offering support and assistance to people who are isolated in countries such as France?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady makes an important point, especially in relation to communicating through, for instance, the Department for Education and schools to make sure that schools get the reassurance that they need. I pay tribute to the way the hon. Lady has conducted herself, given the number of cases in her constituency, and the impact on local health services. We have taken action urgently where contact tracing has shown that it needs to be taken, and we will take that proportionate action. I am also very keen to be able to provide reassurances to people that we are taking the action that is needed and that the threat to the public remains moderate, even as we have seen the increase in numbers.

Dr Caroline Johnson: In my local hospital, staff are being provided with specially fitted masks to ensure their safety when treating patients who may or may not have the coronavirus. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is part of a wider package of ongoing policies and procedures in the NHS to keep our staff safe when treating these patients?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. Making sure that we have the equipment to keep our staff safe is a very important consideration—keeping medics safe is very important not only for them but for the public, because they provide such an important service.

Hilary Benn: Will the Secretary of State tell the House about the latest scientific advice he has had on when, as we all hope, a vaccine might be available?

Matthew Hancock: The estimates vary and the answer is uncertain. There are promising signs of the very early stages of development seeing breakthroughs, but after the early stages of development, there need to be pre-clinical trials and then clinical trials to make sure that any  vaccine is safe, especially given that—thankfully—the mortality rate from this coronavirus appears to be relatively low, at around 2%. Therefore, it is very important that a vaccine does not do more harm than good. I am pushing as fast as I can on the development of a vaccine, but I am also highly cognisant of the scientific advice and the need to ensure that it is safe.

Richard Drax: On the point about mortality, leaked reports are coming out of China that the number of those who are dying is considerably higher than we first anticipated. Is that true? Is that what my right hon. Friend is hearing? Will he also tell the House, and thereby the country, who is most vulnerable? Who is most likely to be seriously affected by this terrible disease?

Matthew Hancock: It is difficult in a country dealing with a very large-scale outbreak, as China is, for the information to be completely accurate. However, a report published in the last 48 hours of a study of 1,099 cases from China has demonstrated that in those cases, the number of children who have been affected and symptomatic is very small. That gives us hope—and some evidence—that the impact is largely on the elderly and frail, less so on people of working age and much less so on children, which is a very good thing for children themselves and for everyone else, because with the flu, if children are spreaders, they tend to spread fast. That is the latest scientific advice coming out of China, although given the nature of the challenges the Chinese health system is facing, it is difficult to get an entirely clear picture.

Munira Wilson: The Secretary of State has fielded various questions on the timescales for a vaccine. If I may be so bold, the chief medical officer told MPs last week that nothing less than a year should be promised for the development of a vaccine or treatment. Does he agree, therefore, that this is very much a long-term solution and that we must redouble our efforts on the public communication campaign on preventive and self-isolation measures?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. On isolation, in particular, the two go hand in hand. People can play a part in combating this virus by washing their hands and using tissues and, if they are symptomatic, by calling 111 before going to a doctor and self-isolating when necessary.

Ben Everitt: I thank the Secretary of State and his team for keeping me and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) updated throughout this process. It has been a very worrying time, but that information has been very useful. I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating the professional way the local healthcare professionals, including those at Milton Keynes hospital and beyond, and our wonderful council officers have risen to the challenge of hosting a coronavirus facility in Milton Keynes. It is also worth mentioning the police, who now have additional powers to keep that site safe. Can the Secretary of State assure me and the people of Milton Keynes that all the appropriate processes, procedures and powers are in place to keep our residents and their families safe?

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who, as a Whip, cannot speak but who has also been working incredibly hard on behalf of people in Milton Keynes to reassure them, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that the extra 100 people from Wuhan that the town has welcomed are now safely there in Milton Keynes. The council and the hospital have gone out of their way to make this as efficient as possible and to make those returning from Wuhan comfortable.

Ruth Cadbury: My constituents’ mother/mother-in-law has been visiting them from Wuhan on a six-month visa that is due to expire at the end of this month, when normally she would expect to go home. What advice are the Government giving to visiting Chinese nationals, particularly from Wuhan and Hubei province, about extending their visas in this unusual situation? I cannot see anything on the UK Government website, but I can on the Norwegian Government website.

Matthew Hancock: I am very happy to ensure that that case is taken up with the Home Office.

Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he and his officials have handled this crisis, which has helped to keep the threat at “moderate”, and Members across the House on the non-partisan approach they have taken. I am concerned, however, that because we have broadcast that the threat is moderate people may become complacent. Will he increase the number of public health messages? I have heard them on the radio, but it struck me at motorway service stations on the way down yesterday that there was no public health information there. In areas of handwashing and bathroom use, it would probably be quite advisable.

Matthew Hancock: That is an excellent idea. We are open to all ideas of that kind and I will look directly into it.

Kevin Brennan: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making this statement. I have a question about the use of this term “super-spreader”. In past outbreaks, people categorised in that way have often been demonised. Will he take this opportunity to explain to people that these so-called super-spreaders might have no idea they have contracted the virus and should in no way be blamed or demonised for spreading it?

Matthew Hancock: This is a really good point, and I want to make two points on it. First, those who have contracted the virus are ill and deserve our sympathy and support. I know from the incredible way they have responded to the need to undertake contact tracing that all those in the UK who we have been working with because they have tested positive have acted in an exemplary way and done everything that society could have asked of them to make sure the virus is contained. I pay tribute to the way they have responded to public health officials and the NHS and thank them for doing that.
On a second connected point, anybody who thinks it appropriate, in response to this challenge, to demonise or abuse anybody from the British-Chinese community,  or anybody of Chinese or east Asian origin, is completely wrong and is being counter-productive to the efforts being made across the country and the world to tackle this virus.

Alex Chalk: I thank the Secretary of State for his measured statement. Does he agree that we should not allow our proper focus on the risk from coronavirus to blunt our efforts in respect of seasonal flu, which, as the chief medical officer indicated, kills around 8,000 people a year? In those circumstances, the precautions taken—handwashing and observing basic hygiene—are important for all sorts of good reasons.

Matthew Hancock: It is absolutely true that handwashing and “catch it, bin it, kill it” are the right responses to flu as well as coronavirus. We are coming towards the end of the traditional flu season, which this year in England came early, in December, and thus far—touch wood—has thankfully been largely mitigated and gone away. Next year, of course, we will be even more vigilant than normal.

Stephanie Peacock: With regard to the capital facility that has been announced, can the Secretary of State outline the total amount of funding allocated to the NHS and can he say whether this is new money or a loan that will have to be paid back?

Matthew Hancock: This will be new money to those NHS organisations bidding for it, and we have not put a cap on it. We are inviting bids from NHS organisations and will very rapidly assess those bids.

Jim Shannon: With universities in Northern Ireland cancelling trips to China individually, can the Secretary of State outline whether the Government intend to issue guidelines to stop travel between and to infected areas? Further, is there any intention to do routine tests on anyone recently returned from the infected areas?

Matthew Hancock: We have enhanced monitoring in place on flights from the areas I mentioned, which is important, and of course we keep all options under review, because the most important thing is to follow the scientific advice wherever possible and to keep people in this country safe.

Business Statement

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Madam Deputy Speaker, I informed the House last week of the Government’s intention to introduce legislation to stop the automatic early release of prisoners convicted of terrorist offences.
Today, the Government will introduce that legislation and tomorrow’s business will now be consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill
Thursday’s business will be as previously announced: a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
I shall also make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the emergency business statement. The Opposition repeat that terrorist prisoners should not be released automatically but be subject to Parole Board assessment before release while serving their sentences.
I have three quick questions for the Leader of the House. First, when is the Bill likely to be published? Will it be published immediately after the statement? Secondly, what sort of timetable, in terms of protected time, does he have in mind for tomorrow? Thirdly, will he clarify if there will be a further statement on what resources will be available for the Parole Board and probation service? We want to keep our citizens safe.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the right hon. Lady and the Opposition Front Bench for the support that they have given. I understand that they have worked with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is satisfaction throughout the Chamber in respect of this very important business.
Let me respond to the three questions that the right hon. Lady asked. The Bill will be presented today; the time will be protected, so it will not be affected by statements or anything else tomorrow; and the Treasury has approved an increase in resources to ensure that the cost of maintaining people in prison and the associated costs are affordable.

Bob Neill: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ensure that this business has priority over all others, but can he give us the proposed timetable for the debates on the police grant and local government finance grant motions? Those also involve important and timeous issues—not as grave as this, but important to local authorities that are seeking to set their budgets.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is right: those matters are indeed important, and they are being delayed. The local government finance motion must come before the House by 1 March to help councils. It will be introduced as a matter of priority, and on Thursday I will announce when it will be introduced. The same applies to the police grant motion. Both are relatively time-sensitive, and they will be returned to the House as urgently as possible.

Tommy Sheppard: Like the shadow Leader of the House, we support the intentions behind the Bill. As all Scottish Members will know, we long ago separated the concept of early consideration from the actuality of the outcome of that consideration, so we look forward to seeing the details of the legislation. However, the Government have said that they regard this as a matter of extreme urgency. It will be possible to conclude the Bill’s Commons stages tomorrow, but if it then goes to the other place and its Members choose to make amendments, when will this House consider those amendments, and when might there be a prospect of our actually getting the Bill on to the statute book? We seem to have approached this in a somewhat haphazard way when it comes to making a timetable.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been in touch with the justice Minister in Scotland, and I am grateful for the collaboration that there has been across all parties in the House. The other place obviously regulates its own business, but the urgency and the message coming from this House are very clear to its Members, and I therefore expect that they will handle this in a reasonable manner. Of course if they make amendments those will come back to this House in the normal way, but as there is cross-party agreement and the Opposition Front Bench has considerable influence in the other place, I anticipate that the business will be concluded swiftly in both Houses.

Thomas Tugendhat: My right hon. Friend has made an important statement, and I welcome the fact that both my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have been present to hear it.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the difference that the Bill would make is to early release and not overall sentencing. Will he make time available for a debate on the law of treason, which dates back to 1351, a little before even his time? Perhaps we could find time in our calendar to update it as the Commonwealth of   Australia did in 2018, and perhaps, in considering how to update it, he would like to read a rather interesting Policy Exchange report written in July last year and entitled “Aiding the Enemy”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is very well versed in these matters and is aware of the danger that treason may present to a nation, but I hope I can give him some reassurance about what happens next. He rightly said that the Bill would only stop early release, but offenders will be subject to robust safeguards on release, which could include terrorism prevention and investigation measures or serious crime prevention orders, among other existing measures. So, even at the point of release, they will not be let out among an unsuspecting public, because our top priority is to keep the public safe.
My hon. Friend’s proposal for a debate on the Treason Act 1351 interests me, because I am always interested in historic Acts, and I quite like the fact that one of our most important Acts of Parliament dates back to the 1350s.

Kevin Brennan: The reference to TPIMs may resonate on this side of the House. They are, of course, much weaker than the control orders which were previously in place but were watered down.
Obviously, because this is emergency legislation, there is no time for a full impact assessment, but the Leader of the House mentioned the extra spending allocated by the Treasury. Will there be full details of what that will entail at the time of the Bill’s publication?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that those details are really for the Second Reading tomorrow, when it will be possible to provide the information that hon. Members will want. However, I can reassure the House that the Treasury is happy with the cost, and that the cost is not enormous. It is not as much as will be spent by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as was clear from his statement earlier.

Point of Order

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 14 August 2019 I met my constituent Jennifer Dees, whose six-year-old son Stanley had been killed with an airgun by his great-grandfather. We discussed the campaign that Jennifer was running for tighter regulation governing the ownership of these weapons, and she sought, through me, a meeting with the Home Secretary.
Since 15 August, when I first wrote to the Home Secretary, my office has made four further attempts to obtain a response. I am very disappointed to have received no formal response from the Home Secretary for six months. Even allowing for the five-week general election period, that is a disrespectful and distressing way in which to treat a bereaved constituent wanting to raise an important issue. Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, advise me on what can be done to remind the current Home Secretary of the need to observe basic ministerial courtesies, and to respond to Members of Parliament in a timely manner?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Home Secretary happens to be here, and I understand that she is happy to give a response immediately.

Priti Patel: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that this is news to me. I will certainly note what the hon. Lady has had to say and make inquiries of my office, and she is very welcome to come and see me.

Bill Presented

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of  Early Release)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Prime Minister, supported by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Priti Patel, the Attorney General, Brandon Lewis, Lucy Frazer, Wendy Morton and Chris Philp, presented a Bill to make provision about the release on licence of offenders convicted of terrorist offences or offences with a terrorist connection; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 88) with explanatory notes (Bill 88-EN).

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Second Reading

Robert Buckland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill—it consists of just three clauses—but its importance cannot be underestimated. It responds directly to real-life issues that we know have caused, and continue to cause, immense distress to the families of victims of serious crimes.
Despite its full and proper title, this is a Bill that we have all come to know as Helen’s law. Helen’s mother, Marie McCourt, has long campaigned for this change to the law. I want to take the opportunity—and I am sure that the whole House will want to join me—to pay tribute to her bravery, her determination and her tenacity. It is in large part thanks to her that we have reached this point at all.
Let me tell the House something about the case with which we are dealing. Helen McCourt was a 22-year-old insurance clerk from the village of Billinge, near St Helens in Merseyside. On the evening of 9 February 1988, just over 32 years ago, Helen disappeared while on her way home from work. The following year, Ian Simms was convicted of her murder and ordered to serve a minimum of 16 years in prison as part of his mandatory life sentence, but he has never revealed where Helen’s body is, and, despite extensive searches, her remains have never been found, which has compounded the misery and the grief of the McCourt family.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Mrs McCourt and her family on several occasions, often in the company of the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). Their dignity in the face of such unimaginable distress is something quite astonishing. All they want is the opportunity to lay their dear daughter to rest.
We have all lost people who are dear to us. We all know the closure and comfort that can arise from laying a loved one to rest. When we take into account the horrific circumstances of Helen’s death, a proper burial and an opportunity to say goodbye must take on a wholly different dynamic for the McCourt family and others in their position. The campaign has resulted in this legislation. We have responded to the issues raised by it to identify a solution that works within the existing sentencing, release and Parole Board framework to ensure that a failure on the part of a prisoner to disclose such vital information is rightly and properly taken into account as part of the risk assessment of the prisoner before any release. It is the least we can do to support the victims of such horrendous crime, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who is present in the Chamber to lend her consistent support to victims, their families and those who have suffered as a result of criminality—for the close partnership working that we have in Government to deal with this important agenda.
I shall now deal with the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 will amend the release provisions that apply to life sentences for murder and manslaughter in order to place a statutory obligation on the Parole Board to  consider a non-disclosure of information about a victim’s remains when making a public protection decision—that is, a decision to release—about such a prisoner. In order for the Bill’s provisions to apply, the Parole Board must not know the location of a victim’s remains, and the board must believe that the prisoner has information about this that he or she has not disclosed to it. This is the essence of the prisoner’s non-disclosure, and it is this that must be taken into account by the board when assessing whether a prisoner can safely be released on licence.

Bob Neill: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that the Bill is morally necessary and the right thing to do. Does he agree that this is really no more than an extension by analogy of the way in which remorse will be taken into account in sentencing, in that those who admit guilt and give full assistance to the police are regarded as more likely to have accepted their guilt? That is true in relation to the approach of the Parole Board too, and this is therefore just a simple extension of the fact that someone who has done their best to accept what they did, even in the most awful of crimes, may be less of a threat to the public in the future than somebody who makes a blanket and wilful denial and is therefore likely to be much less reformed and much less safe to let loose.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, like me has much experience in the criminal justice system. He will know that deciding whether remorse is real or feigned is sometimes a difficult judgment for a court to make. He makes his point very well.
I think it is right for me to deal at this stage with the concept of whether we should have gone further and introduced a rule of “no body, no release”. Tempting though that might be—and I listened carefully to the arguments—there is a danger that if we proceed too far along that path, we could inadvertently create an artificial incentive for people to mislead the authorities and to feign co-operation or remorse. Of course, in another context, we see the dangers that are inherent in what I have described as superficial compliance with the authorities. There is a fine balance to be maintained, but I think that the Bill as presented maintains it in a way that is clear, that increases public confidence in the system and that makes it abundantly plain to those who are charged with the responsibility of assessing risk that, in the view of this House, this issue is of particular public interest and public importance when it comes to the assessment that is to be made.
I was dealing with the essence of the non-disclosure, and I would add that the Parole Board must in particular take account of what, in its view, are the reasons for the non-disclosure. This subjective approach will allow the board to distinguish between circumstances in which, for example, the non-disclosure is due to a prisoner’s mental illness, and cases in which a prisoner makes a deliberate decision not to say where a victim’s remains are located. This subjective approach is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Bill. It ensures that the non-disclosure and the reasons for it—in other words, the failure by the prisoner to say what they did with the  victim’s remains—are fully taken into account by the board when it comes to decision making. It is then for the Parole Board, as an independent body, to decide what bearing such information has on the risk that a prisoner may present and whether that risk can be managed safely in their community. It reflects the established practice of the Parole Board, as included in its guidance to panel members in 2017, but it goes a step further in placing a legal duty to take a non-disclosure into account. This, as I have already mentioned, is part of our intention to provide a greater degree of reassurance to victims’ families by formally setting out the guidance in law.
I turn now to the second part of the Bill, which deals with the non-disclosure of different types of information by offenders. This has been prompted by the horrific case of Vanessa George. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in his place. Vanessa George was recently released by the Parole Board after serving 10 years in prison, following conviction for multiple counts of sexual abuse against children at the Plymouth nursery where she worked. She also photographed the abuse of those children in her care and sent the images to other paedophiles. This was a horrific case, which those of us who had young children at the time, me included, remember all too graphically. Vanessa George’s crimes have caused widespread revulsion. Her abuse of the trust placed in her by the families of the children she was meant to care for and protect is shocking. Their pain has been compounded by the fact that the children she photographed cannot be identified from the images, and that she has refused to disclose their identities to the authorities. All the families involved have been left in a truly terrible limbo, not knowing whether their child has been a victim.
Again, we are seeking to respond by stipulating in law that such appalling circumstances must be fully taken into account by the Parole Board when making any decisions on the release of such an offender. Clause 2 of the Bill will amend the release provisions that apply to an extended determinate sentence that has been imposed for the offence of taking or making indecent photographs of children and, as in clause 1, we will place a statutory obligation on the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of information about the identity of a child or children featured in such images when the board makes a public protection decision, including one to release the prisoner. The provision will apply when the Parole Board does not know the identity of the child or children in such an image but believes that the prisoner is in a position to disclose it and has chosen not to do so. It is this non-disclosure and the reasons for it, in the view of the Parole Board, that must be taken into account before any release decision is made.

Alex Chalk: I heartily applaud the Government for taking this important step. Does the Secretary of State agree that we also need to reassure people that when such an individual comes to be sentenced in the first place, if they have not at that stage disclosed where the body is or the identity of the victims of their crime, the judge should be able to take that into account in setting the minimum period that they should serve? In other words, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the impact does not simply crystallise at the point of release?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend speaks with much experience as a counsel who has prosecuted and defended in cases involving serious offences. He is absolutely right to remind us that it is the function of sentencing either to reflect remorse and give credit for a plea of guilty, which is a mitigating factor, or to reflect an aggravating factor such as the complete non-co-operation that we sometimes see from offenders in this position. Indeed, he knows that that is properly reflected in the sentencing guidelines where applicable, and that in offences of this nature, the court uses schedule 21 as a starting point when it comes to the gradations of seriousness in the offence of murder. This allows judges to move up, as well as down, from that starting point.

Bob Neill: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point. Is not that reinforced by the fact that the sentencing judge in the Vanessa George case specifically referred to the gravity—“indecency”, I think his phrase was—of her non-disclosure? Is it not only logical that the Parole Board should be able to take equal regard when considering release?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, that was an aggravating factor that was specifically taken into account by the sentencing judge.
I was drawing a comparison with clause 1. As with clause 1, the provision is already standard Parole Board practice in that panels routinely take such circumstances into account as part of their decision making, but I believe that the issue of non-disclosure of vital information is of such importance—and causes such distress to families and victims—that it must be addressed in statute.
This is a narrow Bill, but it has wide implications. It ensures that a failure or refusal to disclose specific information on the whereabouts of a victim’s body or the identity of child victims of indecent images is always taken into account by the Parole Board. A murder such as that of Helen McCourt and the depraved crimes of Vanessa George are not things that people can easily move on from, but the ability to lay a loved one to rest or to find out for certain whether children were abused may offer the families and young victims themselves an opportunity to find at least some closure and to address the long-lasting effects of such horrific crimes. I very much hope that the Bill will attract support on both sides of the House and can enter the statute book as soon as possible. The acute distress that such cases cause cannot and should not be overlooked.

Bambos Charalambous: First, I pay tribute to those who have worked so hard to bring the Bill before Parliament. Marie McCourt’s formidable campaign for Helen’s law in memory of her daughter, Helen McCourt, is the reason we stand here today for the Bill’s Second Reading. Helen McCourt was murdered in 1988. Her body has never been found. Helen’s murderer was released from prison last week and has provided no information about the whereabouts of her body. The unimaginable pain caused to Helen’s family and other victims of such unthinkable crimes is only compounded when they are denied the dignity of laying their loved ones to rest. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his support for Helen’s family with his campaign.
Secondly, I would like to highlight the case of a serious sex offender whose non-disclosure of information about their living victims will cause untold distress to a community for years to come. Vanessa George abused multiple children at the Little Ted’s nursery, where she worked in Plymouth. She was sentenced in December 2009 after being charged with seven offences, including sexual assault and making, possessing and distributing indecent images of children. She was given an indeterminate sentence for reasons of public protection to serve a minimum of seven years for her crimes against toddlers and babies.
Vanessa George was released in September 2019 with a number of conditions, but to this day she has not revealed the names of the toddlers and babies she abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) campaigned for such offences to be included in the Bill. He also strongly objected to her release from prison, as he believes, rightly, that her non-disclosure shows no remorse. The nursery where she carried out her horrendous crimes, and the wider community that have been so profoundly affected by her actions, fall within my hon. Friend’s constituency. As the identities of all of Vanessa George’s living child victims are not known, they will not be able to access the emotional and psychological support services that they need as a result of the crimes that she committed against them.
Vanessa George’s conditions of release state where she cannot live and work, and that she cannot use the internet, but they are almost impossible to regulate. More profoundly, affected families were not informed that she would be released and only found out through social media and local news. Put simply, victims and their families who have already suffered psychological harm should not be put through the additional emotional trauma caused by offenders who refuse to disclose information about their victims. When offenders do refuse to disclose information, it is right that they are viewed as still posing a threat to the public.
My party supports the Bill as it will put into statute already established guidance for the Parole Board when making decisions about the suitability of serious offenders for release. The Parole Board’s role is to protect the public by carrying out risk assessments on prisoners to decide whether they can be released safely back into the community. The decisions the Parole Board makes can be life-changing for victims and prisoners, so we must never underestimate the gravity of the conclusions that the panel members come to. The Parole Board’s guidance advises panel members to consider any failure or refusal by an offender to disclose the whereabouts of their victim’s remains when assessing suitability for release. It is also established Parole Board practice to consider the non-disclosure of relevant information by offenders in cases involving living victims. That guidance and practice will now become law under the Bill. It does not change the statutory release test, but rather the Parole Board must consider the non-disclosure of information when applying the release test and making its assessments.
The Bill puts into statute two requirements for the Parole Board. The first is in relation to offenders convicted of murder or manslaughter. The Parole Board will be legally required to consider whether the offender has refused to reveal the details about the location of the victim’s body. The second requirement is in relation to offenders convicted of taking or making indecent images  of children. The Parole Board will be legally required to consider whether the offender has refused to reveal details about the identities of the victims.
Some will be disappointed and question whether the Bill’s provisions will make any practical difference, given the guidance that is already followed by the Parole Board. Some may believe that we need a policy of no body, no parole, such as that in force in parts of Australia. As many will know, the Bill is a variation on a ten-minute rule Bill tabled in 2016 by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North. His Bill proposed an assumption against eligibility for parole in cases of a convicted offender’s non-disclosure about their victim’s remains. However, it is still right that the Bill is before us and will be put into statute. It has taken over three years, two general elections and two Prime Ministers for the Government to offer their own variation of Helen’s law.
This is a simple Bill, but one that we wholeheartedly welcome. However, as it relates to the release of offenders guilty of some of the most serious crimes imaginable and, according to the Government’s explanatory notes, the consequences of causing additional distress to victims and their families, it is concerning that the Government should have taken so long on such a serious matter. It suggests that the Government still have a long way to go on their commitment to putting victims’ views at the heart of the criminal justice system.
There is much to be done to support victims. Before becoming a shadow Justice Minister, I sat on the Justice Committee for over two years. In 2018, we raised serious questions about the transparency of the Parole Board’s decision making, about the lack of information given to victims and about the lack of emotional and practical support that is available to help victims through the whole process. We raised questions in particular about victims being kept up to date with decisions about the release of prisoners.
The Victims’ Commissioner recently reported on victims’ levels of satisfaction and found they were less satisfied than ever before that their views are heard and taken into consideration. That is no surprise to us, given the distress caused to victims in the cases that I have already spoken about. When victims choose to present their victim support statement to the Parole Board panels, they are agreeing to take part in an incredibly stressful, upsetting and emotional experience as they seek to uphold justice. We raised concerns that not enough is being done to give victims the practical and emotional support they need during these oral hearings. In the two serious and well-known cases that I outlined at the start of my speech, victims have voiced their anxiety, distress and frustration at the parole process.
In another well-known case, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley refused to disclose the location of the body of Keith Bennett, the young boy they murdered in 1964. Keith’s mother, Winnie Johnson, tirelessly made the case to keep Ian Brady from being released into the community, unless he revealed information about the whereabouts of Keith’s body. Winnie was denied the right to give her son a dignified burial and to lay him to rest, and she died before ever finding her son.
I know that society can never fully take away the grief and distress of victims of serious crimes, but the Government should be putting every effort into alleviating  some of the pain and making the parole process at least bearable. Years of cuts undermine the hard work of staff across the criminal justice system and specialist support services. As I mentioned, the decisions the Parole Board takes are life-changing for victims. So, to conclude, it is clear that, although Labour Members welcome this Bill, we will not allow the Government to be complacent, either in their duty to protect the public or in their duty to support victims who are already suffering such immeasurable pain.

Stephen Metcalfe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this important debate.
I warmly welcome today’s Second Reading and the introduction of a Bill that will place a statutory obligation on the Parole Board to take into account an offender’s non-disclosure of certain information when making decisions about the release from prison of certain prisoners. It is right, proper and decent that the Parole Board should be required to take into account the failure of a prisoner to disclose the whereabouts of a victim’s body, or the identity of a child victim in indecent images.
I want to focus my remarks on non-disclosure about murder victims. The Bill has been a long time coming, and at times I was concerned that we may never see it come forward. It is most welcome because this is not some technical law change; it is about real people, real victims, real families, and real hurt and anguish. This is about Helen McCourt and her family. It is about my constituent Linda Jones and her family, and her murdered daughter, Danielle Jones. It is about all the families who have been denied the opportunity to put to rest a loved one who was killed or murdered in the most distressing way. The number of families involved in the non-disclosure of victims’ bodies may be small, but however small the cohort is I am sure we can all understand the pain and hurt caused by withholding the whereabouts of a loved one’s body. This legislation is welcome, but, unfortunately, Helen’s law comes too late for some.
I believe that Marie McCourt is watching these proceedings. Together with my hon. Friend—I will call him that—the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), she has campaigned for many years for the introduction of such a Bill. They will have to live with the fact that for Marie this comes too late. Despite pressure on the Parole Board, attempts at a judicial review and an application for reconsideration from the Justice Secretary, all of which were unsuccessful, the Parole Board stuck to its original decision and a few days ago Helen McCourt’s killer, Ian Simms, was released, having never disclosed the whereabouts of Helen’s body. I can only imagine how distressing it must be for Marie to hear us talking about those tragic events, and to know that Simms has been released must be heartbreaking. I can only express my personal sorrow that this legislation did not come earlier and that we were not able to stop Simms’ release.
I do hope that Marie will take some comfort from knowing that her dedication to this cause, her steadfast belief that the law should change and her determination not to give up is what has brought us here today, and that it will provide some comfort and hope for other families affected by the cruel and heartless actions of  those who refuse to reveal the location of a victim’s remains. On behalf of all the families and victims, I thank you, Marie. I thank you on behalf of Linda Jones, the mother of Danielle Jones, who was last seen alive on 18 June 2001.
First, the police thought that Danielle had been abducted. I do not wish to go into all the details of the case, for fear of causing renewed distress, but I can say that ultimately the investigation became a murder inquiry. On 14 November 2001, Danielle’s uncle, Stuart Campbell, was charged with murder, although her body had not been found. At the ensuing trial, in December 2002, Campbell was found guilty of both abduction and murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, to run concurrently with a 10-year sentence for abduction. The High Court later ruled that Campbell should serve a minimum of 20 years before being considered for parole, meaning that in November 2021, despite never revealing the location of Danielle’s body, Campbell could be considered for release.
The loss of a child—the murder of a child—would be hard enough, but to never have the opportunity to say goodbye and know where they are must be an intolerable burden for Linda and the family to bear. Although this Bill will not bring Danielle back, I hope it will encourage Campbell and others who withhold such information to reconsider their actions and give families some small comfort by revealing the location of victims’ remains. If they do not, I, for one, believe—and I am sure others agree—that parole should be denied. With all the caveats that we have heard from the Justice Secretary, if the victims have to live with the indeterminate pain of not being able to get some form of closure, I see no reason why the perpetrators should be able to move on. This welcome Bill goes some way to achieving that. It will therefore receive my full support, and I hope the support of the whole House, so that Helen’s law can stand as a memorial to all the victims, their families, and, in particular, Marie’s tireless campaign to see justice done.

Conor McGinn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who has been with me and other colleagues every step of the way on this campaign in Parliament over the past three years. For Marie McCourt, it has been much longer than that, and I want to acknowledge her. It might seem a strange thing to say when we are discussing what I suspect many would view as a technical Bill, but the genesis of our being here today to debate it on Second Reading is in love—the love of Marie McCourt for her daughter, Helen. I am so proud and pleased to see Marie and her husband, John, and their close family friend Fiona Duffy, who has done so much work in the campaign, here to see this come to fruition today.
I want to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Justice and his ministerial team for the way in which they have approached this legislation. As I will go on to say, it is not everything that we had wanted or hoped for, down to the crossed t or the dotted i, but he is a man of his word and put a significant amount of effort into ensuring that all the legal complications that were put before us were overcome. I also want to acknowledge the presence of the Home Secretary on the Front Bench, because from the Back Benches she strongly supported  our efforts and used her influence on government, and it is good to see her return to her place. I want to thank her for her support for this Bill.
As has been said, Helen McCourt was murdered in my constituency, in Billinge, which lies between St Helens and Wigan, in 1988. The death devastated her family—Marie, her mother, and her brother, Michael—but it was the love they had for Helen and for each other that allowed them to remain together as a family unit. It was the love that the community in Billinge and St Helens have shown for Marie since then, up to this very week, which has been a tremendous testament to the strong sense of solidarity that we have there. Marie’s campaign, driven entirely by Marie, not only attracted half a million signatures from people across the country, to the purpose of what the Bill is today, but meant that many more families, such as the Joneses, and others, knew that they were not alone. They knew that it was not just them, that they were not the only ones facing the horror, trauma and awfulness of not only having a loved one murdered, but then not being able to give their loved one a final resting place. For Marie, that feeling is centred very much around the church in Billinge where, two years ago, for the 30th anniversary of Helen’s death, hundreds of people from across the community came out to show their love, solidarity and support for Marie.
The Bill applies only to England and Wales, but only yesterday in Northern Ireland the murderer of a young woman called Charlotte Murray was sentenced to 16 years. He has not revealed the location of her remains. Her sister Denise very eloquently and profoundly—I do not know where she got the strength from; it was incredible—talked about the especially cruel suffering that families like hers endured. The judge said that the murderer’s not revealing the location of her remains was the most serious aggravating feature of the case. That is why this Government Bill, based on the private Member’s Bill—Helen’s law—that we first brought before the House to unanimous support three years ago, is so vital, not just for the families we know about already, but unfortunately for the families who will face this heinous and terrible scenario in future.
Today is bittersweet because, as many in the House will know, just last week Helen McCourt’s murderer was released from prison. Marie has shown dignity, tenacity and sacrifice in continuing to pursue the campaign throughout the frustrations of Helen’s law falling because the House was prorogued and Parliament then dissolved. The fact that she has stuck with it because she knows that it will help other families is testament to her and to her character.
Ian Simms was released. The Parole Board in my view made an appalling decision that, to his credit, the Secretary of State for Justice gave it the opportunity to rectify. The Parole Board did not do that. Arising from this Bill and that case are wider questions to be asked about the Parole Board and about how victims feel in relation to its conduct vis-à-vis assessing dispassionately the actions of the perpetrator rather than concentrating on the sensitivities of the family. The fact that he was released just days before the 32nd anniversary of Helen’s death was quite frankly incomprehensible to me and caused additional suffering and hurt to the McCourt family.
The reason I took on the campaign in Parliament on Marie’s behalf was not just that she is my constituent and a dear friend, but that it was the right thing to do.  This is very simply a case of what is moral and what is just. If a person murders someone, is convicted of that crime and does not reveal or give information as to the whereabouts of their victim’s remains, they should not be entitled to be released from prison, because the families of victims are never released from their sentence, especially because they have no right or recourse to give their loved ones that final place of rest.
Although the Bill is not absolutely a “no body, no parole” law, I understand that it will hugely strengthen the criteria that have already been laid down by the Parole Board. It would ill behove anyone watching this debate or hearing about the sequence of events that led up to Ian Simms’s release not to ensure that this legislation is a hugely significant factor when they look at parole for convicted murderers.
As I did in the discussions on the initial private Member’s Bill, I wish to address the justifiable concerns of those who ask, “What if someone is innocent?” Of course, the Bill will not take away the right of any convicted criminal to appeal his or her sentence. In the case of Helen McCourt’s murder, he did appeal and has done so on multiple occasions. If anything, his guilt, and the proof thereof, has only been enhanced by that process. The Bill will not in any way absolve our judicial system from the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty; all it does is ensure that when someone is convicted of a crime and proven to be guilty, they should be held accountable and made accountable for what they have done.
I thank the Daily Mirror for its support for this campaign over many years, and my local newspaper, the St Helens Star, as well as so many colleagues from all parties who, in discovering that they had in their constituencies families in awful situations similar to that of the McCourts, made a huge effort to support, reach out to and involve those families in an inclusive, passionate and ultimately just campaign.
I am very proud to see the Government bring forward this Bill, which challenges a few orthodoxies. One is that the Government do not listen; the second is that we cannot change the law from the Back Benches; and the third is that one citizen does not have the power, solely based on her love for her daughter, to do right by her memory.

Lucy Allan: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and his excellent campaign, and echo many of the sentiments that he expressed in the superb speech that he just delivered to the House. I also express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for all his work and efforts, since his appointment, to focus on victims and to put their rights front and centre. I am also extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for her work that focuses on the rights of victims, which traditionally we perhaps have not put so much centre stage. The Government do themselves proud by making such a commitment to victims, and the Bill is an example of that desire to put victims front and centre.
I of course welcome the Bill, understand the rationale behind it and support it, but I wish to make some remarks that I should be most grateful if Ministers  considered. Those remarks relate to the Parole Board’s role, which the hon. Member for St Helens North alluded to just a short moment ago. The placing of a statutory duty on the Parole Board to ensure that the issue of non-disclosure is properly considered is a positive step and a very welcome gesture, but the Bill will not fundamentally change the Parole Board’s current practice. The families in such cases will still have to rely on the Parole Board’s discretion, and that raises some questions about the Parole Board’s role when it comes to victims’ interests.
We have already heard about concerns relating to the Parole Board’s accountability and transparency, and there are clearly some gaps in its duties relating to responsibilities to victims. In the light of recent high-profile cases—for example, the Worboys case—there has clearly been a loss of public confidence in the Parole Board. There is a real need for the law to be seen to be on the side of victims. Yes, that is exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve, but in relying solely on the Parole Board’s discretion, it does not quite achieve that.
In the Worboys case, the Parole Board decided in January 2018 to release this serial offender early, after only eight years. The then Lord Chancellor was unable to intervene—in fact, he backed the Parole Board’s decision—leaving it to victims to mount a judicial review, which fortunately found that there had been shortcomings in the decision-making process. The courts were therefore able to require the Parole Board to revisit the decision, more information then came to light, and Worboys was sentenced further for additional attacks.
A feature in the Worboys case was the Parole Board’s failure to notify victims of Worboys’s forthcoming release. Another feature was that the Government felt completely powerless to intervene on behalf of victims. The case was not a one-off. The Parole Board is, of course, bound to balance the need to keep the public safe against the human rights law that prevents the arbitrary detention of offenders—that is the Parole Board’s job and its duty, and that is what it does—and the Bill will still allow the Parole Board to release an offender who has failed to disclose the known whereabouts of a victim’s body or failed to disclose the identity of a child victim. The Parole Board is not bound, by this Bill or by any other requirement, to take into consideration the rights of victims. I would very much like Ministers to consider how in future they can look at the Parole Board’s role and augment it to ensure that victims’ rights are up there with the rights of offenders. Clearly, this Bill will still allow a killer, sentenced to life, to be released, even if he has failed to disclose the whereabouts of a victim’s body. Most people would say that such a person may not be properly rehabilitated if he is refusing to co-operate on something as basic as the location of a victim’s remains, or the identity of a child.
The Bill raises issues about the Parole Board that were out there and being discussed, but that were not satisfactorily addressed in the previous Parliament under previous Lord Chancellors. Perhaps this new Government, with the new approach that has been so much on display with the current Lord Chancellor, could consider how the role of the Parole Board could be looked at in more depth. I know that there was a review of the Parole Board in 2018. One recommendation was that there should be a further, more in-depth review of the Parole Board’s activity to see how legislation might  actually make it a more transparent and accountable body. I would very much welcome such a review, especially if we could pursue it in a little more depth. We must continue to ensure that the rights of victims are equal to those of the offenders.
I also wish to touch on another issue around the Parole Board. In Telford, I have been trying to find out whether a serious perpetrator of child sexual exploitation, who was sentenced to a 26-year extended sentence in 2012, has been released. He was eligible for parole seven years later, in December 2019, and I cannot get an answer on whether that has happened. I cannot get an answer because I do not know his prisoner number. If I am unable to learn whether he has been released, the community I represent is also unable to know. The victims and their families also want to know. We do not want a Parole Board that does not feel that it has any duty to the victims. That is something that this new Government, with their commitment to victims and their families, can do so much about. I know that victims’ families and the wider community would truly appreciate such a step.

Daisy Cooper: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being late for the start of this debate. The Liberal Democrats also welcome this Bill. It is a good move and we are glad to see it here today. I am pleased that the hon. Member has been talking about the rights of victims in particular. The Bill responds to a number of cases, including that of Vanessa George, a nursery worker who was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse and of taking and distributing indecent images of children. She then refused to name those victims. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need the Government to take many more steps to provide support and advice to victims of sexual abuse, including by providing sustainable grant funding for specialist independent support services in relation to those who are survivors of violence against women and girls?

Lucy Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the rights of victims, particularly of women and girls, in this place.

Joy Morrissey: I just wish to thank the Secretary of State for this Bill. On the issue of victims of child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, there is nothing better than holding abusers to account for those whom they have victimised. Forcing them to disclose their victims takes away their power, which is why this is such a welcome Bill. It shows that we are listening to the victims and saying to the perpetrator that they can no longer hold in their heart the secrets of the people that they have abused. I very much welcome that, and I thank the Secretary of State for his boldness in taking this forward.

Lucy Allan: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with every word that she has said.
I wish to conclude by saying that this is a Government who are on the side of victims and their families, and that this is exactly what this excellent Bill intends to achieve. I urge Ministers on the Front Bench to continue their good work in this arena, and particularly to place some pressure on the Parole Board to focus on the rights of victims. Again, I thank the Government for all their good work.

Luke Pollard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) who has done so much to champion justice especially for those people who have been abused as children. I welcome the two sets of provisions in the Bill. I will restrict my remarks to Vanessa George and the abuse of babies and toddlers in Plymouth. First, though, let me say how grateful I am to Mr Speaker and to the Opposition for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches instead of from my usual spot on the Front Bench. This is a very important constituency issue for those whom I represent.
Speaking up on behalf of those children who attend Little Ted’s Nursery has been, although very difficult, a privilege and an honour. The experiences of those children have been so utterly harrowing. Because their identities are still unknown and because there is a desire to keep what is left of their childhood innocence intact, not many people have come under the media spotlight and been recognised publicly for what they have done. I want to thank all the families for their courage, their steadfast determination and for their love of their kids. Without them and their work, we would not be here today with this Bill in front of us. I would love to name all of them and give them credit, but I prefer to give them the even better privilege of just knowing that they were listened to and that their children’s innocence is safeguarded.
Ever since the news of Vanessa George’s release came to light, I have been campaigning to keep her behind bars. I am not a hang ‘em and flog ‘em politician. That is not my style. But when it comes to the abuse of babies and toddlers, what Vanessa George did both in terms of the acts she committed and of her continual refusal to name which children she abused and which she did not has cast a whole new light over my views on the Parole Board and her release.
As the Front-Bench teams have touched on, the case around Vanessa George is exceptionally disturbing. The abuse, including the penetration of babies and toddlers and the photographs of that penetration and abuse, is something that is really, really difficult for many of us to understand—how someone could do that and how someone could then share those images. The severity of that case was part of the reason why she was given an indeterminate sentence. It was for reasons of public protection. The indeterminate sentence has somewhat complicated this case along the way due to its particular legal position. When sentencing, the words of the judge to Vanessa George were quite profound. She said:
“I cannot emphasise too strongly that this is not a seven-year sentence. It is emphatically not. It is, in effect, a life sentence. Many, and I suspect everyone deeply affected by your dreadful deeds, will say that would not be a day too long.”
The parents of those babies and toddlers were let down twice: first, by a system that did not protect their children in a place where they should have been safe; and, secondly, as one parent told me through tears, that George was released with the identity of those children still not known.
When we talk about matters such as this, we sometimes talk about the identity of the victims, but, in this case, it is not only the victims, but those young children who could be victims. We do not know precisely which  children she abused. I have heard the stories of what happened when this news came to light. Parents gathered in a hall and were separated into two groups. One group was the parents of the children who could have been abused and the other the parents of those who were probably not abused. Hearing about how friends were separated into two groups was just harrowing.
I will return to that in a moment, but there is a point about communication that is also key. Many of the families heard about this on social media. The campaign that the parents and I started after her release called not only for a change in the law, which is what we are seeing today, but for a change in how the Parole Board works. The hon. Member for Telford spoke about the operational side of this, which is also really important. Changing the law to keep people like Vanessa George behind bars is important, but how that is communicated and how parents and victims are involved is especially important.
I want to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) in thanking the Secretary of State for the way in which he has engaged on this. Much in this place is a disappointment, but in this case the cross-party working and the professional way that not only the Secretary of State but his Ministers engaged with me and with the families’ concerns are truly remarkable. It is an example that shows that cross-party working can deliver results, and I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for that work.

Marie Rimmer: This is a commendable step brought about through Marie McCourt’s tremendous efforts over 32 years and the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). Does my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) agree that although we still have a long way to go, this is a huge step in the right direction for justice for victims?

Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and the way in which Ministers have merged two campaign asks in a single piece of natural justice is quite sensible.
I have some concerns. Personally, I think that Vanessa George should still be behind bars. I do not see how a woman who refuses to name the children she abused should be let out and, indeed, I believe that if someone abuses a child, the state should say that for the childhood of that victim the perpetrator should be behind bars. That would give those children the entirety of what remains of their childhood in a protected space away from the accused. The fact that Vanessa George has been released without naming the children she abused shows that something was not right with the law and the experience of many of the parents throughout this process has been to stumble across deficiencies and difficulties in how it has worked. That needs to be addressed.

Julian Lewis: With all his experience in this tragic case, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the fault lay with inadequate powers for the Parole Board, in that it felt that it had no option, or did the Parole Board have the power not to release Vanessa George and choose not to exercise that power,  in which case there is something terribly wrong with the recruitment practices for membership of the Parole Board?

Luke Pollard: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I would not wish to sit on a Parole Board for all the money in the world. It must be incredibly difficult to choose whether or not to keep what are in many cases very serious offenders behind bars. As regards Vanessa George, I think the Parole Board had no choice but to release her, and that is why this change of law is so essential. Indeed, initially I called on the Secretary of State to reopen the investigation to ensure that no stone was left unturned, and no charge was missed that could be put against her to try to keep her behind bars. The dedication and professionalism of Devon and Cornwall police in reopening the file and ensuring that nothing was left in it showed that the system had done as much as it could do, which is why a change in the law is absolutely necessary in ensuring that we can keep someone like Vanessa George behind bars.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address my concerns about how the law will be implemented. Thankfully, there are very few cases like that of Vanessa George and very few cases in which there has been child abuse on this scale where, when it has come to light, the names have been withheld. But there are many more cases in which a charge of taking an indecent image of a child sits alongside other more serious charges, and reading the Bill I am unsure how these provisions will work alongside additional charges when the primary charge is more severe. If the conviction is spent on the first charge, does the ability to withhold information on a subsequent charge of taking indecent images mean that the whole sentence could be locked down?
There is a concern, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who made a professional debut at the Dispatch Box, about what happens to Vanessa George regarding licence conditions. I am grateful to the Parole Board for setting such comprehensive licence conditions that mean that she cannot go back to Plymouth, that she should never bump into or to be seen near any of the children that she abused, and that she should never be able to access the internet. We can now buy internet-enabled fridges, so there is a real difficulty in enforcing some of the minor points of those conditions. May I ask the Minister whether, if a licence condition is now triggered and she is called to jail, the provisions in the Bill would apply? Or would they fall away, and would these provisions apply only to new offences?
Very briefly, as I am grateful for the time the House has given me to speak, the operation of the experience around Vanessa George has shown that it is not only the deficiency in the words of the law that needs to be looked at but the whole journey for victims, particularly those brave and courageous parents who gave evidence at the parole hearings. I would like the Government to look into introducing a system of video links through which victims—or, in this case, the parents—could give evidence. Going into a jail where the perpetrator of such heinous crimes against their children is being held—especially when that jail is far away from where they live—is a really harrowing experience for parents. The ability to give evidence via video link from the local court is common in the rest of the criminal justice system, but not in Parole Board hearings.
There is also a point about communications. Many of the parents who were involved in the Vanessa George case found out about her release on Facebook or via our local paper. That is not because of a lack of willingness from the authorities to keep those parents’ details. It is that there have been 10 years of changing email addresses and addresses. For some parents, the stress of the abuse even broke the relationship and couples went their separate ways, meaning that the communication point was held by just one person. The process needs to be looked at again. I encourage the Secretary of State to look at the principle that was adopted with the new organ donation law: an opt-out system. This would mean that everyone, especially for these most severe cases, would be automatically included in the system, unless—for very good reasons that I think we can all understand—those people choose to opt out of getting regular updates. Implementing such a system would make a substantial difference.
There is a real opportunity to take some of the lessons learned from the Vanessa George case and not only to make better law, but to ensure better operation of the Parole Board’s processes. I believe that many of the children she abused still do not know what has happened to them. Many will not know how they feel or that they are feeling the way they do because of their childhood experiences; they will not know what is going on. Having spoken to many of the parents, I know that there is a daily worry. They ask themselves, “What happens if my child asks me about her?” or “What happens if they ask, ‘Did I go to that nursery?’” These are live questions for many of the parents.
The parents and children I have spoken about this afternoon have a life sentence ahead of them. There is no escape. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North mentioned that there is no escape for families who cannot have a body to bury, so there is no escape from the realities of this sentence. Now that Vanessa George has been released, she may be watching these proceedings. To her, I say: name those kids and let us give the families the peace that they deserve.

Anthony Browne: It is an honour and a pleasure to follow so many thoughtful and compassionate speeches, and to see such cross-party consensus. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his campaign, and to the Home Secretary and fellow Ministers for bringing the Bill to the House.
On 10 September 2001, I was in New York and had lunch with my wife at the World Trade Centre. The next morning, I saw the twin towers collapse. I was a journalist at The Observer at the time, so while others were fleeing ground zero, I went down there and saw the world’s worst terrorist incident close up. The reason I mention this is that the biggest impact of that terrible tragedy on me was the response of the relatives of victims. From Tuesday lunchtime—a few hours after the attacks—pictures of people started popping up around Manhattan, stuck to lamp posts and railings, with messages asking, “Have you seen this person?” By the evening, whole areas in New York, such as Union Square, were covered with pictures of faces of people who were missing, put up by relatives who were desperately searching for them.
I spoke to many relatives of the missing, as they went from hospital to hospital, visited known favoured places, went to work and called friends to see if they could find their missing husband, wife, brother, sister, son or daughter. There were literally thousands of people, all looking—looking even when, really, there was no longer any hope. The relentless energy they put into it was astonishing. The one thing that they could not do was what they were told to do, which was to stay at home and wait for a phone call. There were thousands of people with missing loved ones, and all their reactions were fundamentally the same. As the hours turned to days and the days turned to weeks, it remained all-consuming: the need to know; the need for some form of closure.
When reading the case of Helen McCourt, this is what I was reminded of. The circumstances are different from what we are discussing today, but this most powerful and natural human reaction—this psychological imperative in response to loss—is what motivates the legislation that is Helen’s law.
As we have heard, on 9 February 1988, Helen McCourt, a 22-year-old insurance clerk, went home after work and got off a bus just 500 yards from her house in Merseyside. She was never seen again. Her body has never been found. She had worked as a barmaid in the local pub, the George and Dragon, which was next to her house and where she was also a regular. The publican, Ian Simms, was convicted of her murder on overwhelming evidence. Her blood and fingerprints were found in his flat above the pub. Part of her earring was found in the boot of his car. He was imprisoned, but has always refused to say where her body is. He has just been released from prison, but is still refusing to say where the body is.
Helen’s mother, Marie McCourt, has campaigned relentlessly since her daughter’s murder. I want to join the tributes that we have already heard to Marie McCourt and to that campaign, without which this legislation would not be here today. Without the body of her daughter, Marie McCourt cannot bury her. She cannot have full closure with a funeral. She cannot visit her daughter’s grave to lay down flowers and to remember her daughter. She cannot properly grieve.
Not knowing the location of the body does not just mean that the victim’s family suffer even more than they already are. For the murderer, not revealing the location of the body means that he retains some control over his victim’s family. Those involved have talked about how it can give the murderer gratification. It certainly shows that the murderer has not properly taken responsibility for his crime or felt remorse. If the murderer is released without revealing the location of the body, it compounds the family’s suffering. The family do not know where their loved one’s body is, and the one person who does know is walking around freely and refusing to say. It is unconscionable. But this is what has now just happened.
Ian Simms may insist that he is innocent, but that is simply not the case: the evidence was utterly conclusive. He is still refusing to let Marie McCourt have a proper funeral for her daughter. That is why I support Helen’s law and why over half a million people signed a petition to for it to be made law. That is why I support this Bill. I regret, as some said earlier, that the Bill did not come in time to stop Ian Simms being released from prison.
The number of cases that the Bill affects may be small, but the injustice it corrects is huge. The issue of murder without a body has a long and difficult history. Courts used to be very reluctant to convict someone of  murder when there was no body. But more recently, forensic science has become far more sophisticated, and, as with the case of Helen, courts are now more willing to pass convictions for murder even when there are no bodies. Cases like this are bound to become more frequent.
This Bill does not go as far as some campaigners have called for: an automatic ban on release from prison for murderers who do not reveal where the bodies are. But it does impose a legal requirement on parole boards to take into account the fact that a murderer has not revealed the location of their victim’s body. That sends a very clear message to parole boards of what society and Parliament expect of them. Putting that into law will ensure a more consistent and fairer approach.
I agree with the Government that we cannot automatically impose a ban on the release of murderers who refuse to reveal the location of the body. What happens in cases where the murderer would be willing to reveal the location of body but genuinely does not know where it is? What if the murderer cannot remember, perhaps because of dementia? The variety of cases means that parole boards have to have some discretion, and I think this Bill gets the balance right.
I have always believed that justice needs to focus far more on the rights, wishes and needs of victims, and for that reason I commend this Bill to the House.

James Daly: It is an honour to take part in this debate, in which I have heard one of the finest speeches since I have been here. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) articulated for us all the emotion, the feeling and the motivation behind the long campaign that his constituent has waged on this issue. I have been a criminal defence solicitor for 16 years. This legislation should have been on the statute book 16 years ago: it has been far, far too long. It is reasonable, it is proportionate, it is morally correct, and it is a matter of blinding common sense.
In the short time that I have, I want to make two points and pick up on a comment made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) regarding Vanessa George’s case. Two things dominate criminal proceedings, whether it is a less serious offence or the most serious offence. The first is public protection. Vanessa George could not be released by the Parole Board unless it felt that there was not an issue of public protection. The Parole Board somehow came to the conclusion that a lady who was withholding the names of victims was not a threat to the public. That defies logic and common sense. The Parole Board could have held Vanessa George in custody but chose not to, and these are the issues we are talking about.
Public protection and the protection of victims are central. When I used to stand up in the magistrates court and a defendant pleaded not guilty, I made bail application after bail application, some successful and some not. The reason why some were not successful was that the courts prioritise the interests of victims—they prioritise the public interest, and that is what the Bill does.
The second point I would like to make is about rehabilitation. We can all say warm words about the concept of rehabilitation, but sadly, in my experience—  certainly for the vast majority of those whom I represented —I cannot say that rehabilitative sentences worked, nor had the impact of custodial sentences. I agree with the discretion provided for in the Bill. We cannot have a situation where defendants with mental health issues or suchlike can be judged on events that happened a long time ago. But if there is evidence to suggest or to state quite categorically that somebody who has received a substantial custodial term is aware of where their victim’s body is, or is aware of a child victim, it seems obvious to me that that person is not rehabilitated. If they are not rehabilitated, they continue, in my view, to pose a threat to the public. These matters should be at the forefront of the Parole Board’s decision-making process. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) that we should review how the Parole Board discharges its functions, but this is a good Bill and a much needed one, and I am glad to be part of this debate.

Richard Holden: I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who made an incredibly powerful speech, and to the Government for bringing forward this legislation, which is not before time.
I want to make a small point about my constituency. There were more than 1,800 victims of sexual assault at the Medomsley detention centre between the 1960s and 1980s. The perpetrators included a gentleman called Neville Husband, who raped boys every day for 15 years and is now known to have had at least 300 victims locally. While I welcome the Bill, I would like to see it extended beyond the crimes mentioned today for those who do not reveal information about victims. Many of those men died before they could come forward, often by suicide. It is incredibly important to recognise that more cases would benefit from the Parole Board bearing in mind the fact that people are not willing to put on record the crimes they have committed.
I would like to mention other cases in the public domain in which criminals have been convicted but their victims have still not been identified. In the recent case of Reynhard Sinaga, we know that there are more victims of his rapes in Manchester, but they have not been identified, and he has never sought to help the police identify them. It would be right for the Parole Board to take that into account in his case and that of others who have acted in a similar way. Similarly, in the case of John Worboys, which my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) raised, the names of some victims are still not known. In some cases, mementoes are taken from crimes, and often the perpetrator will know the victims but still will not reveal their names.
While I welcome this Bill for victims of paedophilia, murder and manslaughter, I urge the Government in future criminal justice Bills to look at extending this provision to cover other victims.

Laura Trott: First, I add my name to the chorus of tributes to Marie McCourt and her family and to Opposition Members who have campaigned for the measure heartily and brilliantly for a number of years.
I welcome the Government’s Bill as part of an overall move to restore faith in the system, and to keep people who are a risk to the public behind bars. We should be  in absolutely no doubt that people who refuse to acknowledge where bodies are, or where their victims are, are trying to replay the crime to the families over and over again. It is clear from the speeches that we have heard that that is something that the Parole Board should take into account.
That is possible only because we are talking about extended determinate sentences. The Parole Board is involved with people on those sentences, not with those on standard determinate sentences. There is a universal belief about the importance of remorse in those cases. When standard determinate sentences are used—for example, in rape cases—remorse cannot be taken into account. That ties into conversations that we have had about delegated legislation and other Bills, so I add my name to that of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) in urging that the measure should be extended to other cases.
Time is short, so I shall make three brief points. First, I should like reassurance that offences under clause 2 with regard to indecent images should not ever fall under standard determinate sentences. We have discussed serious offences that are subject to such sentences, and I should be grateful for reassurance from the Minister that that will not be the case. Secondly, on the duty for the Parole Board to take this into account, as numerous pieces of testimony have shown today, the Parole Board is not always as efficient in doing that as it should be. It would be useful if the Department monitored the impact of the Bill on sentencing and the extension of sentences as a result of its introduction. Things that people have been asked to look at do not always translate, so I add my name to those of many other Members in urging that we make sure that that happens.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is no longer in his place, said, courts do not take this into account in sentencing as much as they could. It is not necessarily the case that the Bill should address that, but the more that we can do to encourage that and put pressure on courts to do so, the better. No one can argue that people who commit these terrible crimes should not be in prison for a very long time, and the sentences that we have discussed are, in my view, and that of many members of the public, nowhere near long enough. The idea that people who have committed these heinous crimes are walking the streets with no notice for the victims’ families grieves me furiously, as I am sure it does many hon. Members, so reassurance on that would be helpful.

Lee Anderson: I have two sons and I cannot imagine life without them, let alone losing one to a murderer. When Helen McCourt was murdered in 1988 her family lost a beautiful young lady with her whole life ahead of her. It is impossible to understand the pain that they must have felt all those years ago, but of course the pain has not stopped, because the cruelty continues. It is indeed cruel not to allow grieving families the opportunity to lay their loved ones to rest. This cruelty must be dealt with.
Helen’s law will mean that the Parole Board must consider this cruelty when reviewing an offender’s suitability for release. A murderer who refuses to reveal the location of a victim’s body is not suitable for release. Parole Board guidance makes it clear that offenders who withhold information may still pose a risk to the public and could  therefore be denied parole. Helen’s law will, however, make it a legal requirement for the Parole Board to consider the withholding of information when deciding whether an offender should be released.
Helen’s law follows the tireless campaigning of Marie McCourt, Helen’s mother. I want to praise the bravery and tenacity of Helen’s mum, who through a terrible tragedy has managed to bring about these much-needed changes. Murderers who refuse to disclose where their victims are located only prolong the suffering of innocent families and deny them a proper burial. This legislation will mean that families will not have to endure a lifetime of suffering and not knowing where their loved ones’ remains are. It is said that time is a great healer, but not in cases like this. The only thing that can help to start healing the wounds is to support victims’ families through this Bill.

Bambos Charalambous: With the leave of the House, it has been heartening to hear so many thoughtful and passionate contributions to this debate from across the House. One thing that is very clear is the universal support for the Bill to pass through its next stages and become law.
I wish to pick up on some of the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) gave a moving account of his constituent and her suffering. The facts of that case are very similar to those in the case of Helen McCourt. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) spoke with great passion in a brilliant speech that encapsulated the spirit and essence of why we are here today. The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) shared her insightful experience of her dealings with the Parole Board and explained why there is a need to reform it. That may be outside the terms of this Bill, but it is also an issue that we take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke with genuine passion about the need to learn from experience and the need for change and why the Bill also encapsulates the abuse of children and the unspeakable and unimaginable pain and suffering when victims are not identified. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) talked about the need for closure, his experience at the twin towers at ground zero and the people who are unable to find closure, and why this Bill is so important to find closure. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) spoke about his experience as a criminal lawyer and the need for public protection and rehabilitation. Again, these are areas that need to be impactive.
The hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) spoke about the need for the Bill to be extended to other areas, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). That may be an issue that we can come to in Committee, but these are important issues that we need to consider. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) talked about the cruelty that continues if the location of the body is not disclosed. That is the enduring suffering that the families of the victims who are unable to get closure have to experience.
I hope the Minister considers the important points raised in this debate. There is an issue about the Parole Board, the need for communication, the need for regular updates and transparency about the workings of the  board. The Bill is right and we need to make sure it passes through all its stages. Knowing where a victim’s remains have been disposed of, or the identity of children who are the subject of indecent images, and not disclosing the information must surely be an indication as to whether a prisoner has truly shown remorse or not. The victims must be properly supported and must be put at the heart of our justice system.
Serious concerns have been raised in the debate, particularly about the transparency of the Parole Board’s decisions, the lack of information communicated to the victims and the lack of support they are given throughout the parole process. However, as has been stated by Members, the Bill is an example of what can be achieved through cross-party co-operation. I very much hope that it is put on to the statute book as soon as possible. Labour will certainly be voting for the Bill today on Second Reading. I very much look forward to taking part in the Committee stage and Third Reading.

Chris Philp: We are standing here today because of two incredibly tragic cases: the tragic murder of a wonderful young women, Helen McCourt, 32 years ago at the age of just 22, in the prime of her life with everything to look forward to; and the terrible abuse committed by a nursery teacher, Vanessa George, who abused the trust that was placed in her by parents of tiny children. Yet from these tragic cases, today’s debate shows some good can come. I pay particular tribute to Marie McCourt, who I believe is in the House today, for her tireless and very brave campaigning. I can only imagine the grief and anguish she must have experienced every day that she has campaigned on this case, bringing back, as it must have done, the terrible memory of what happened to Helen. Yet she has persisted and she has persevered, because she has been determined that others will not suffer the terrible grief and anguish that she has. There can be few sacrifices for a parent more poignant than to go through this sort of experience, reliving terrible events, simply to help others avoid the same experience. As a parent myself, I thank her and pay tribute to her for the enormous sacrifice she has shown by campaigning in this way over so very many years. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I would also like to thank the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), her constituency Member of Parliament, who has campaigned with energy, vigour and, I must say, a great deal of charm in making sure that this issue has not been forgotten, despite the political upheaval of the past few years. There may have been general elections, referendums, Dissolutions and Prorogations, but thanks to his hard work, persistence and perseverance this issue has not been forgotten. The Second Reading of the Bill today is testament to his hard work on this topic.
I might say the same thing about the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who has campaigned for his constituents; parents who, for reasons he explained, have not wanted to come forward into the public gaze, not wanting to expose their children to the publicity that would have accompanied them stepping into the limelight. He has spoken for them: he has spoken for those parents and for those  children. He has made sure that the Bill encompasses those particular circumstances as well. I thank him and pay tribute to him for the fantastic work he has done in making sure that those children are not forgotten by this House.
As hon. Members have said, the Bill is a testament to the House of Commons and our system at its best. We have worked together. We have co-operated. We have overcome obstacles where we have encountered them. I think everybody who has been involved in this process can be extremely proud of the part they have played in it. I thank the shadow Minister for the support he has shown today in backing the Bill.
I would like to pick up on one or two of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) reminded us that victims should be at the heart of the process. I entirely agree. The victims Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), is on the Front Bench listening to the debate, together with the Lord Chancellor. It was only last September that the Government put more money into independent sexual violence advisers, who are there to help victims of sexual violence, and into rape centres. I very much hope there is more the Government can do in the weeks and months ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford also mentioned the fact that there is still an element of Parole Board discretion, as there has to be, for the reasons the Lord Chancellor clearly outlined in his opening speech. We are very mindful that the operation of the Parole Board does need careful consideration. A number of Members have made reference to that this afternoon. In addition to the review already under way, we will be conducting a root and branch review of the way the Parole Board operates to make sure the points raised by hon. Members are fully taken into account. That follows a relatively recent change whereby the Lord Chancellor can ask the Parole Board to reconsider a decision if he believes that it was not right the first time. That was introduced following the John Worboys case. I know that he has used that power a number of times and that it has, on some occasions, been successful. I take on board entirely the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford made.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport asked some questions, one of which was: if there is a number of offences that somebody is serving a prison sentence for and only one of the sentences qualifies under clause 2, would the provisions still apply? The answer is that they would still apply, if the qualifying offence is one of a number of qualifying offences. He mentioned such things as video links for parents or families of victims to give evidence at Parole Board hearings, as well as contact details and opt-out, rather than opt-in communications, and those points were extremely well made. I hope that the root-and-branch review will look at them and I thank him for raising them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about recall. The provisions that we are debating apply to the first release that may occur. If a prisoner is released and then recalled, the statutory provisions that we are enacting will not apply, but the Parole Board guidance will, requiring it to take into account the non-disclosure—so the statutory provisions will not apply, but the Parole Board, under its guidelines, will have to account for those matters.
I turn to the questions that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who I can see is showing an interest in these topics. Where there is a standard determinate sentence, the provisions of the Bill do not apply because there is no Parole Board decision—release is automatic. Whether a sentence is a standard determinate sentence is a matter for the trial judge at the point of sentencing and it depends on whether the trial judge decides that the offender is dangerous. Clearly, for murder cases, for example, a life sentence with a tariff is mandatory, but with some of the indecent image offences in clause 2, it is conceivable that if a judge did not find that the offender was dangerous, they might hand down a standard determinate sentence. However, that was not the case with Vanessa George—it was an extended determinate sentence—and the expectation is clearly that any serious offender who is dangerous will receive an extended determinate sentence, and therefore, the Bill’s provisions would apply to those offenders.
On standard determinate sentences and releases more generally, the House rightly passed a statutory instrument a week or two ago moving back the automatic release point from half-way to two thirds for longer sentences, of seven years and over. We intend to go further in the sentencing review and Bill later this year to make sure that the most serious offenders serve more of their sentence in prison, respecting the expectation of victims, which so many Members have spoken about this afternoon.
This law places on a statutory footing the fact that the non-disclosure of a victim’s whereabouts or the identity of child victims of indecent imagery must be considered by the Parole Board. That means that there is no discretion for the Parole Board to disregard these considerations—it has to take them into account—and there is no way that anybody, other than this House, can ever change this provision in future. This is a significant step forward for victims. It will make sure that non-disclosure is properly and fully considered by the Parole Board in all circumstances, and it sends a clear message to any prisoner who is currently serving one of these sentences that this House finds it unacceptable that they fail to disclose the whereabouts of a victim’s body or the identity of victims.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) talked about his constituent, Linda Jones, and her daughter, Danielle Jones, who was murdered by Stuart Campbell, who is currently serving a prison sentence. The message that Stuart Campbell and others like him should hear loud and clear, on this day, from this House, is that their failure to disclose is unacceptable and abhorrent and that they should make that disclosure straightaway. We are striking a blow today for the rights of victims and their families, who deserve to be able to move on with their lives following crimes of the most appalling kind. I pay tribute again to the bravery of Marie McCourt in bringing this matter forward over so many years. The Bill is a testament to her bravery and to her daughter, and it is right that we shall know it as Helen’s law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PRISONERS (DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ABOUT VICTIMS) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))
That the following provisions shall apply to the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative Grand Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
4. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
5. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Maria Caufield.)
Question agreed to.

Opposition Day

[3rd Allotted Day, First Part]

Migration and Scotland

Rosie Winterton: I inform the House that the Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Stuart McDonald: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the UK Government’s response to the Scottish Government’s publication of 27 January 2020, Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper, setting out proposals for a Scottish visa scheme within a UK-wide system; welcomes support for the Scottish Government’s proposals from the business and rural communities in Scotland as well as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Federation of Small Businesses Scotland and Scottish Council for Development and Industry; notes Scotland’s unique demographics in that all population growth for the next 25 years is projected to come from migration; recalls comments from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in June 2016 that Scotland would decide immigration numbers if the UK were to exit the EU; and calls on the Home Secretary to engage positively with the Scottish Government in relation to these proposals before introducing the Immigration Bill and to devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament to enable a tailored migration policy for Scotland.
It is a pleasure to introduce this significant and serious debate on migration and to support the incredibly reasonable and considered policy proposals recently published by the Scottish Government—proposals that would ensure migration policy worked for every part of the UK but could also be tailored to reflect Scotland’s particular needs and circumstances. Indeed, those two features go together, for it is only by making sure the system is tailored to the different parts of the UK that we actually ensure that it can work for all the different parts of the UK.
From the outset, it is important to emphasise that these proposals have been widely consulted upon and developed collaboratively. The report flags up support for a tailored system from organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Law Society of Scotland, the David Hume Institute and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Many more names could be added to the list, from the all-party group on social integration to think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research. A range of academic reports have set out options for differentiation, including Dr Christina Boswell and Dr Sarah Kyambi at the University of Edinburgh and Dr Eve Hepburn for the Scottish Parliament. Lessons from international examples have been learned, from, among others, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland.
During the Brexit referendum campaign, we were told by the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the matter of future immigration numbers:
“It would be for Scotland to decide because under the proposals that we have put forward we believe that a points based immigration policy…would be the right approach.”
He went on to say that the head of the Leave campaign in Scotland had written to the First Minister explaining how Scotland
“can have a greater degree of control over immigration policy”
after Brexit. So I look forward to the support of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The simple proposal put forward by the Scottish Government is for an additional visa route for people to come to live and work in Scotland. Learning, in particular, from Canada’s provincial nominee programme, it would ideally be for Scottish Ministers to set out criteria and rules for selecting who could get one of those visas. The Scottish Government would then accept and reject applications against those criteria. The application would then transfer to the Home Office, not for reassessing the merits of the application, but to verify identity, check immigration history and satisfy security requirements. The visa granted would include a requirement that the visa holder live in Scotland for its duration. There would ideally be routes to settlement after that, probably at the five-year mark. It is acknowledged that a range of different models would be possible. The details and the numbers involved would be subject to negotiation.

Simon Hoare: I agree that we need to make sure that our immigration system is fit for purpose and meets the needs of the UK’s economy, but the hon. Member said he would expect people granted a visa to stay in Scotland for the duration. How would he police and enforce that? There is a great difference in scale between Scotland and England and Canada and America.

Stuart McDonald: I shall come to that point later in my speech, if I may, but I can think of examples that are much closer to home than those that the hon. Gentleman has given. For instance, the Republic of Ireland has an open border with a country that has a completely independent immigration system, but no one seems to think it necessary to close the border to the north, or to introduce routine checks at ferry ports or anywhere else.
All the reasons why such a tailored approach is necessary have been rehearsed repeatedly by my hon. Friends in the House for several years, and have been set out in a series of Scottish Government papers as well as in independent reports. Historically, Scotland’s population story has been one of out-migration. Only since 2001 has the country seen a sustained period of net in-migration, driven by a growth in both the number of EU citizens and the number of people from the rest of the UK who are coming to live and work in Scotland. While that recent history of in-migration and population growth has been welcome, the old history has left us with a legacy of a rapidly increasing older population and a smaller share of younger working-age people. Those challenges are not unique, but they are more pronounced in Scotland than in other parts of the UK and, indeed, Europe.
Looking ahead towards mid-2043, even as matters stand, we see that all Scotland’s very modest projected population growth is set to be from in-migration, with more deaths than births expected each year. Our working-age population is expected to remain the same size, but the population of older people will increase. Those trends are either distinct to Scotland in the UK context, or far more pronounced than they are in the UK as a whole.

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but is there not also an economic imperative? As he has said, Scotland’s working-age population is going to decline, which means that there is a price to be paid not only by Scotland but by the rest of the United Kingdom in the loss of tax receipts. My hon. Friend is outlining a common-sense solution that will enable us to learn from practices elsewhere in the world, so that we in Scotland can increase our prosperity and our population. What does he believe is driving the UK to simply say no to the Scottish Government, other than just sheer vindictiveness?

Stuart McDonald: That is a very interesting question, and I look forward to hearing the reasons offered by the UK Government. Hopefully, having listened today to the case that the Scottish Government and my hon. Friends have made, Ministers will open their eyes and at least engage constructively with our proposals.
Against the background that I have described, surely no one in the House can seriously suggest that if changes were being made to the immigration system for Scotland alone, the policy goal would be a reduction in the modest but sustainable levels of migration that we have seen in recent years. Analysis shows that any such reductions in levels of EU migration will make all those trends worse, and will risk a decline in both Scotland’s working-age population and the overall population.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has pointed out, it cannot be overstated that all this has huge implications for economic growth, for GDP, for GDP per head, for our tax base and public finances, and for our economy and our society. Yes, we need the very highly qualified and well paid, but we also need those who are making an immense contribution to our country and economy but are not earning £25,000, whether they are in the care sector or the tourism industry, are starting out in research, or are working in food and drink, agriculture or retail, or many other sectors of our economy.

Carol Monaghan: According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, the average starting salary of graduates in Scotland is £23,500, which puts them significantly below the reduced salary thresholds that the UK Government are considering. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a full roll-out of post-study work visa routes to ensure that talented graduates can make their careers in Scotland?

Stuart McDonald: My hon. Friend is right, and the sooner that happens the better.
So what do we seek to achieve through today’s debate? I have been in this place long enough to know that even in the rather unlikely event that I make one of the greatest speeches in Parliamentary history, neither the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), nor the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), is going to suddenly perform a 360-degree U-turn and wholeheartedly embrace every aspect of these proposals, much as I would love that to be the case. I am simply asking the Ministers, particularly the immigration Minister, to engage with them seriously. Indeed, I make that request of all Members in all parties.
After the recent publication of the report from the Migration Advisory Committee, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:
“Business will want to see the Scottish and UK Government working seriously and closely together on these and future recommendations, ensuring appropriate policies are devised and implemented that work for businesses and our economy”.
In anticipation of the Scottish Government’s report, Scottish Labour’s external affairs spokesperson said
“Scottish Labour supports exploring a degree of flexibility within an overarching UK immigration system”.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives said:
“We’re willing to look at any proposal which helps Scotland prosper in this new era.”
I say to the Ministers that if they were to speak to their MSP colleagues, I think they would find—privately, at least—a degree of sympathy for the proposals that the Scottish Government are making, so I ask them please to engage with them as well.
In contrast, all we had from the Home Office was an unnamed spokesperson dismissing the proposals before they could possibly have been read, and we have since had a fortnight not so much of serious engagement but of knockabout politics, nonsense and soundbites. To draw a line under this skirmishing and to show that the UK Government do indeed treat with respect the suggestions put forward by the Scottish Government and supported by Scottish business, unions and civic society, will the immigration Minister meet Scottish Government Ministers and officials before he finalises the new immigration White Paper and introduces the new immigration Bill? That was something that his predecessor bar one, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), did on a regular basis when she attended Cabinet as immigration Minister, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can take his Department back to that form of constructive engagement. That would be far better than the nonsense and soundbites that we have been served in the fortnight since the Scottish Government’s paper was launched.
I want to address some of those soundbites now. We have been told for the 100th time that the UK Government want an immigration system that works for the whole of the UK. Believe it or not, I am quite happy to support that ambition too, as it is entirely consistent with what the Scottish Government propose. We simply believe that a system that works for the whole UK can—and, indeed, must—reflect the different needs and circumstances of its different parts. The Scottish Government paper expressly proposes further change to the UK-wide immigration system. This would involve changes that could benefit all of the UK as well as practical, tailored policies that provide solutions to Scotland’s needs, drawing on international models. There is a whole chapter in the report dedicated to whole-of-the-UK policy change, if only we could get people to read it. Is the Minister seriously saying that the Canadian migration system does not work for all of Canada because it has different rules for different provinces? In fact, most people there would say that the systems and rules work better for the whole precisely because they are tailored to suit the different parts.
We have also been told for the 100th time that immigration is a reserved matter. We are all absolutely aware that that is the case for now, but it does not have to stay that way, and we certainly would prefer that it  did not. Once again, however, nothing in the Scottish Government’s paper is inconsistent with that. I have explained that, ideally, it would be for the Scottish Government to draft the criteria and to consider applications for a Scottish visa. However, it could be the UK Government who define the criteria and rules, receive and assess the applications and issue the visas. The UK Government do, of course, implement a shortage occupation list for Scotland, illustrating that tailored approaches are perfectly possible, even if they are not willing to go as far as formal devolution. Again, this is all in the Scottish Government’s paper, and I encourage people to read it.
We have also been told a few times that the Migration Advisory Committee has rejected the idea of a devolved system, but that is absolutely not a fair representation of what the MAC said. It is true that the Committee decided, on balance and accepting that there were good arguments on both sides, that if the Government want a salary threshold for tier 2 visas, it should be one salary across the UK. That went against the majority of stakeholder submissions, particularly from Scotland. Nevertheless, it is totally wrong to say that the MAC rejected the case for devolving migration powers or introducing tailored rules for Scotland. To quote the MAC report directly:
“We acknowledge the desire of the Scottish Government for immigration to become a devolved rather than a reserved matter, a question on which the MAC takes no position seeing it as a political rather than an economic question.”
The one part of the MAC report that we do call on Ministers to implement is its recommendation that a pilot project should be established to look at retention of migrants in remote and rural areas. That is a recommendation that the former Home Secretary—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—accepted in a written statement back in July last year. An entire chapter of the Scottish Government paper is about wanting to engage in the pilot process, and the Scottish Government have tasked their own expert group on migration and population to consider how that could best benefit Scotland’s rural communities. Again, our ask is simple: will the immigration Minister meet Scottish Government Ministers and engage with them on how that pilot scheme could work in Scotland?
Another old chestnut is the argument that issuing a small number of Scottish visas would make the UK system too complex. That takes some brass neck, given the state of UK immigration law and the complexity and bureaucracy that successive UK Governments have imposed on those who come into contact with it. When it comes to work visas, it is widely accepted that while the bureaucracy of the tier 2 system might be surmountable for large multinational companies, it is ill suited and incredibly cumbersome for the small and medium-sized enterprises on which the Scottish economy is more reliant. The Scottish Government paper expressly adopts as one of its principles the need for the migration system to be easy to access and understand, and indeed the MAC and the UK Government have accepted the importance of making the process simpler. The visa proposed by the Scottish Government seeks to make things simpler still for employers by avoiding the burden of formal sponsorship and ensuring that salary thresholds  do not exclude particular jobs. There is every opportunity for the Scottish visa to make life simpler for employers and applicants, rather than more complex.
Finally, the Prime Minister brought up the ludicrous old argument about a tailored system making a border a necessity. Hon. Members will know that successful tailored so-called regional migration systems exist right across the globe, including, of course, in the Government’s favourite Australian system. Not a single one requires internal borders. I might also quietly point out that the UK is happy enough to share an open land border and a common travel area with a country that has an entirely independent immigration system. Over the past five years, Ireland has issued an annual average of 27,000 visas to non-EEA nationals who of course have no right to live and work across the border in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the UK. Next year, EU migrants going to Ireland will fall into that bracket as well, roughly doubling the number of people who will arrive in Ireland with the right to live and work there, but not in the UK. But no one is saying that we need additional checks on people coming into other parts of the common travel area. That is because thinking of immigration control as simply what happens at the border is to fundamentally misunderstand it.
Most immigration control depends on what happens in country. Successful enforcement includes selecting people who are most likely to comply with their visa restrictions, then on placing appropriate conditions on what people can and cannot do once they have passed through the border, and only then on the enforcement action and sanctions that are applied if people do not comply.
The UK’s main work route for non-EU nationals, soon to be rolled out to EU nationals, operates in precisely the same way. People have a visa that is tied to a particular employer. We do not make them comply by erecting a border around them or their workplace; we simply recruit a person we trust to do the job, place conditions on their visa and rely on enforcement and sanctions in the small number of cases where that is needed.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is right that much of the enforcement of our immigration system are the in-country rules, but I have read his paper carefully and he is proposing a Scottish visa that is not tied to the sponsorship of a particular employer, has no requirements for a minimum salary, and would therefore be a complete open door for people to get into the country that way with no one to carry out any in-country enforcement. He has just destroyed his own argument.

Stuart McDonald: I have not destroyed my own argument, because the parallel is with Ireland. The in-country checks would take place in those parts of the United Kingdom where people are not entitled to live and work. It is often said that that would be a back door to working in other parts of the UK, but the checks exist there. If somebody with a Scottish visa applies for a job in London, they will be turned down because there are sanctions for employers who break the rules and for the people who actually do that. It works perfectly well. Nobody suggests that we need to take any action in relation to the people coming in via Ireland, and it would be exactly the same for the far smaller number of people using the Scottish visa.
It is not just Ireland that we are talking about: our friends in the Isle of Man get to issue their own visas and yet the UK is happy to operate a common travel area with them. If the Isle of Man can do that, why not Scotland?
The Lib Dem amendment has not been selected, but I will address it. There is little in its critique of the UK immigration system that I could possibly quibble with, and it is consistent with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect that the Scottish Government’s paper refers to. The amendment also reiterates the party’s call to end limitless immigration detention and to close Dungavel detention centre. My party and I have been making those points for years on end, and we did so in one of our most recent Opposition day debates last summer. Indeed, my party was making those points even while some Lib Dems were part of the coalition Government delivering aspects of the hostile environment that they now condemn. As their amendment states, I want a fair, effective immigration system for the whole of the UK, but again there is absolutely no reason why that cannot incorporate tailored approaches for the different parts of the UK. I urge hon. Members to engage positively on the issues. Their amendment should have added to our motion, not attempted to replace its substance.
The case for a devolved, or at least a tailored, system for Scotland is powerful and verging on the unanswerable. We are at a pivotal moment for migration policy and for Scotland’s population. The overarching objective of UK Government policy is to reduce migration. Nobody in this Chamber can seriously dispute that such a policy goal is wholly inappropriate for Scotland. The Scottish Government, after extensive consultation with stakeholders, have put forward serious but reasonable proposals for a Scottish visa based on a wealth of research and international experience. I urge Ministers and Members across the House to engage seriously with the proposals, because failing to do so risks drastic consequences for Scotland. If that engagement does not happen, if those proposals are not taken seriously and nothing is done to avoid those drastic consequences, more and more people will consider the other way to avoid those drastic consequences. That is, of course, to push through our own independent migration policy, just like Ireland does, as an independent country.

Douglas Ross: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on how he has presented his case today and, indeed, on how Scottish National party Members have promoted the Scottish Government’s recent report.
The hon. Gentleman and I served together on the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament, and I hope he will agree that, although we robustly debated a number of issues, we respected each other’s differing opinions and views. One thing I can agree with, in response to his direct request of me and other Ministers, is a 360° turn of my position—I will turn my decision through 360° and return to exactly where I started, just as he asks. When he asked me to make a 360° turn, I wondered whether he was taught by the same person who told the right hon. Member for Ross,  Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) that a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland will cross the North sea, but perhaps that is the SNP Scottish education system coming out.
There will not be a meeting of minds between me and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on this matter, because this Government are committed to introducing a new immigration system that works for the whole UK—for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why the Government have engaged, and continue to engage, extensively with many stakeholders across Scotland, including the Scottish Government and, crucially, businesses across a wide range of sectors. Their views have helped us to develop our plans for the future immigration system. We will introduce a firm and fair immigration system that focuses on what individuals contribute, not on where they come from—it will focus on those who would benefit the whole UK.
The Scottish Government’s recent report outlines the demographic challenges facing Scotland, but those challenges are manifest in other parts of the United Kingdom, too. We are committed to devising a system that helps address those challenges, but we have no plans to devolve powers on immigration. Introducing a devolved or regional immigration system would bring about significant complexities and would simply not be practical. Instead, we will introduce a new system that recognises the needs of all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and that offers more of the flexibility for which employers and others have called.
Indeed, on the day the Scottish Government’s report was published, the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was in Glasgow to announce this Government’s commitment to the science community through our new global talent route, which will attract people from around the world with special skills, including the top researchers, scientists and mathematicians. We will create bespoke visa schemes for new people who will fill shortages in our public services and build the companies and innovations of the future, benefiting Britain for years to come.

Ronnie Cowan: What the Minister is saying is that, if we developed a system for Scotland that suited Scotland’s immigration needs, it would not be suitable if it did not work for other parts of the United Kingdom.

Douglas Ross: What I was saying, if the hon. Gentleman had listened, is that the problems in Scotland are not unique to Scotland. We face these problems across the United Kingdom, and it is surely better if we address them across the United Kingdom. The SNP seems to think these problems are unique to Scotland, but they are not.
We will create a fast-track NHS visa for medical professionals with NHS job offers, thereby reducing risk, reducing visa fees and providing support for them to come to the UK with their families. Of course, the Scottish national health service will benefit equally with the rest of the United Kingdom.
As I have said, we have laid rules to introduce new visa routes to recruit leaders in their field by offering the best graduates and winners of scientific prizes fast-track entry to the United Kingdom.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Surely the Minister must agree that what we are seeing is the jagged edge of devolution. Powers are being given on health and developing the economy, yet the Open University business barometer estimates that it will cost businesses in Wales £150 million a year to try to fill the skills gap. What we do not have, just as in Scotland, is the means to fill that skills gap tailor-made for Wales. That is the jagged edge of devolution, and it is not allowing us to develop properly.

Douglas Ross: I have experienced politics in Scotland for a long time, and I believe the Scottish Parliament has a great deal of powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland—the problem is the people currently operating those powers; the SNP Government are letting down the people of Scotland.
We have already announced the creation of a new graduate route, which will help our world-leading universities, including those in Scotland, to continue to attract talented young people, and allow students to stay and apply for work for up to two years after they graduate. It is important that these changes are introduced to the United Kingdom as a whole. Under the devolution settlement, immigration is reserved, and it is right that it continues to be so. It is also better for those using the system, both migrants and those who sponsor them, such as employers and educational institutions. There are many workers whose jobs are necessarily peripatetic, and trying to pin a worker down to a particular location is not a straightforward proposition. An assessment of an individual’s tax code would not be sufficient to determine their immigration status. It might indicate where an employee spends some of their time or even where a company’s head office is—for example, where payroll is managed—but it would not provide any certainty as to where an employee spends the bulk of their working time.
Let us imagine the burden for an employer who is constantly having to determine whether he or she can deploy particular workers to certain areas depending on the terms of their visa. Let us consider the example of an engineer who works for a company that has several contracts in both England and Scotland. Could a migrant on a Scottish visa fulfil that role? I foresee significant complications and litigation resulting from that.

Stuart McDonald: There are different ways we could do this. I, for one, suggest that these people should be allowed a limited number of days working in other parts of the UK. A firm such as that would simply use the main UK immigration system and apply for a tier 2 visa in the normal way. We are talking about additional visas to allow employers to bring in people who would not qualify for the main UK visas. This is about additionality; it is not an alternative and more complicated way of doing things.

Douglas Ross: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman, who is promoting this debate, is coming up with more and more add-ons to this. His own party’s paper, which I have read from cover to cover, says that this proposal is to deal with the majority of people who will be working in and only in Scotland. The example I have given is just one of many where people could be employed by a company in Scotland yet be working in other parts of the UK. I foresee significant problems with that.

Philippa Whitford: rose—

Douglas Ross: I want to make a bit of progress, if I may, because I have given way several times.
We also need to consider the economic justification of what is being proposed. We are very fortunate in this country that we are able to rely on the independent and impartial advice of the Migration Advisory Committee. The MAC is appointed by fair and open competition, and always issues a call for evidence when conducting its inquiries to ensure that it has the widest range of evidence to draw on. Its recent reports show that Scottish interests were well represented in the evidence that the MAC received, and MAC members visited all parts of the United Kingdom as part of the process of coming to its conclusion. Given that the MAC consults so widely in producing its advice, it is worth reflecting on what it has said. In its report “EEA migration in the UK”, published in September 2018, the MAC said, on regional differentiation in the immigration system, that
“we do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to make such a differentiation on economic grounds.”
In the same report, it went on to say:
“In previous reports the MAC has recommended against introducing more regional variation for a number of reasons. We have considered it desirable to keep the system as simple as possible and the salary thresholds have been set based on national pay distributions and not by the demands of higher wage regions. Similar arguments have been used against regional variation in setting the national minimum wage.”
However, that clear advice from the MAC was not sufficient to end the calls from the Scottish Government for a separate system, so the MAC was obliged to return to the issue again. The most recent MAC report, “A Points- Based System and Salary Thresholds for Immigration”, was published only last month. Again, the MAC’s recommendation was clear:
“We have considered regional salary thresholds and can see the arguments on both sides and on balance, we have concluded that the relevant salary thresholds should apply across the UK. This is in line with previous MAC recommendations but also in line with other bodies such as the Low Pay Commission that has always recommended a UK-wide minimum wage. Although there are some economic arguments for regional variation these are not large enough to justify the added complexity of regional variation in salary thresholds.”

Stuart McDonald: I have two points to make on that. First, it is slightly rich of the Government to be hiding behind the MAC report, given that they have just sacked its chairman because it did not buy into the Australian points-based system bonanza. Secondly, if the Minister was listening to my speech, he would know that the MAC was considering salary differentiations throughout the UK there and said specifically that it was taking “no position” on the issue of whether or not migration should become a devolved rather than a reserved matter, because that is
“a political rather than an economic question.”
So it did not come to a view on whether migration should be devolved.

Douglas Ross: It is rather rich for the hon. Gentleman to criticise me for quoting from the MAC report and then to quote from the MAC report himself. If it is good enough for him to quote from that report, it is good enough for me to quote from it.
I have a final quote from the MAC report, which said:
“We also don’t want to institutionalise some parts of the UK as ‘lower wage’; regional inequalities should be addressed through equalising wages.”
The Government share that view and are committed to the levelling-up agenda, and I would like to believe that that view is shared in all parts of the House.
I wish to say something on the role of the Scottish Government, who commissioned the report we are discussing.

Peter Grant: May I take the Minister back to his enthusiasm for the work of the Migration Advisory Committee? According to the committee’s own website, its six good citizens consist of two from the London School of Economics, one from the University of York, one from the University of Warwick in Coventry, one from the University of Oxford and one from the University of Southampton. According to the biographical information on the MAC website, none of them has declared any previous experience working in Scotland or, as far as I know, in Wales or Northern Ireland, either. Although I welcome the Government’s new-found enthusiasm for the virtues of elite academic experts, as these people no doubt are, if the Minister wants an immigration system that works for the whole UK, surely that system should be looked at and analysed by people with experience of working in all parts of the UK. [Interruption.]

Douglas Ross: I am extremely sorry to hear that an experienced SNP Member, backed up from a sedentary position by the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—[Interruption.] Will he allow me to continue? The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) does not think that the MAC reports are in any way relevant to Scotland because there is no one Scottish on the committee. The MAC consults widely with Scotland. That report is clearly worthy of quoting, as it has been quoted twice now by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. The MAC’s membership is made up of experts who consult and engage with Scotland before they commission any report. We should thank them for their efforts rather than criticising them for not being Scottish enough. It is a particularly separatist argument that we get from the SNP time and again.

Hannah Bardell: rose—

Douglas Ross: I want to start to bring my remarks to a close.
I was saying that I wanted to mention the role of the Scottish Government—I wonder whether that is why we now suddenly have a number of SNP Members trying to interject. The Scottish Government have considerable powers at their disposal on education, infrastructure, economic incentives and taxation that can deal with many of the concerns that are being raised. If there is concern about falling population in Scotland, I encourage SNP MPs to engage with their colleagues in the Scottish Government and look into how they can make Scotland a more attractive place to live and work.
The Government recognise the value of immigration, provided that it is properly controlled, which is why we are ending free movement and introducing a new points-based system that will ensure that the best and brightest  talent from around the world will be able to come to the United Kingdom. That will enable us to exercise control while at the same time reducing overall migrant numbers. Further details of our future system will be set out in the near future.

Neil Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Douglas Ross: I am bringing my remarks to a close because I know that a number of people want to speak.
This is a Government with an ambitious agenda. We are going to transform the immigration system, creating a world-leading points-based system that works for each and every part of the UK and gives people in the United Kingdom the assurance that we have control but can also bring in those who can help our country. We will speed up and simplify the system but, crucially, avoid the complexities that will ensue from having different arrangements for different areas. I do not believe it would benefit any part of the United Kingdom to adopt an approach based on fragmentation.
The Government believe in a migration system that works for the whole of the UK. Unlike those who secured this debate, the Government believe in the notion of the United Kingdom. I personally will continue to have an open and frank dialogue with SNP Members and the Scottish Government. Scotland’s two Governments can work together on this important issue, and I assure SNP Members and Members from all other parties that the Scotland Office door will remain open to discussion on this issue.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I thank the SNP for securing this debate. It is often falsely claimed that we never talk about migration in this country; on the contrary, it seems that many on the Government Benches and their supporters never stop talking about immigration. What separates today’s motion from so much else is its attempt to talk rationally about migration. That alone is a breath of fresh air.
Furthermore, today’s motion sets the discussion in terms of what our needs are, wherever we are located. It sets it in terms of what is needed for our society, our education system, our public services and our economy. That must be the right overall approach, otherwise people would be arguing about what immigration system we want, irrespective of the consequences on our society and on our economy. Only a charlatan or worse would argue that they wanted an immigration policy that disregarded the consequences. On close inspection of today’s motion, I can say that it contains nothing objectionable. However, there is one point of disagreement, to which I will return.
It is clear that this Government have taken a high-handed and dismissive approach to the publication of the Scottish Government’s migration needs in “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper”. It must be correct that the Home Secretary should engage positively with all elected politicians, although yesterday’s urgent question on charter flight deportations shows that that is still a work in progress. Of course, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be a man of his word and keep the promises that he made on devolution, all which is entirely reasonable. This is the main content of today’s motion.
My one caveat in relation to the motion, which does not negate my previous remarks, is that we on the Labour Front Bench do not believe that Scotland is a uniquely special case that would require a tailored migration policy. Skills and labour shortages are a common feature across the country. For example, there are more than 100,000 vacancies in the NHS alone. There are enormous shortages of workers in social care. The country lacks skilled engineers. We have labour shortages in agriculture and skills shortages in science and research and in the academy. The Office for National Statistics reports that, altogether, there were still more than 800,000 vacancies in the job market at the beginning of this year. They are concentrated in healthcare and social work, but there are huge shortages of professional and scientific workers.

Pete Wishart: We are all grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for this motion. May I gently say to her that I know that there are issues across the rest of the United Kingdom, and that there are skills shortages in large parts of the UK—we found that in our Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry—but in Scotland, we can do something about it. We have a democratic political institution called the Scottish Parliament that can assume these powers and at least make it better for Scotland. Surely, if we can do that, we should do that.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
There are huge shortages of professional and scientific workers, as well as of workers in the wholesale and retail trade and in the hotels and restaurants all across the country. Of course, the Government’s plans for a new migration system do not take that into account. They pretend that they have an Australian-style points-based system, which Professor Alan Manning, the departing chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, has derided as a “soundbite”.
What the Government actually propose is a crude income threshold for immigration, and on that we can agree. It ignores completely those underpaid sectors and jobs where there are skills or labour shortages. It is a system that is set irrespective of the consequences on our society and on our economy. Hospitals need not just brain surgeons but cooks, cleaners and porters too. That applies not just in Scotland but in all the countries and regions.
There are further concerns about what might amount to a devolution of immigration policy. The value that workers provide is the most important contributor to production. There are severe problems created by artificially limiting the flow of labour to where the jobs are, as this Government will do with their Brexit policy. There are further, if less significant, difficulties created by limiting the flow of labour within our nations and regions, as a Scottish-only immigration policy would do. For example, a Scottish NHS trust may recruit a junior doctor from overseas, but, after a few years, that junior doctor may need to further their training, and the best place in which to do so is Birmingham General. How would a Scottish-only visa help them? We could also take the example of an engineer recruited to Aberdeen, who now seeks to fill a post in Leeds, and so on.

Stuart McDonald: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I welcome her to her new role. I agree with much of what she says, apart from on this particular point. The whole idea is that the Scottish visa would mean that that doctor was able to come to Scotland when, otherwise, they would not have been able to do so. If that doctor, or any other employer, had to move around different parts of the UK, they would do so using the mainstream UK immigration system. This is additionality; it is not an alternative. If the Scottish visa does not exist, those people cannot be here at all. That means that the issue of mobility around the whole UK does not arise.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do appreciate that. In the case of the Scottish Government, there is currently a very welcome, rational and reasoned approach to migration—in case that compliment was not obvious, I will make sure that it is. However, no one can say that that will always be the case, or that it is even the case in all the nations and regions now. The widespread use of devolved powers in immigration could create bizarre and unworkable recruitment process and practice across the regions if others started to take a less rational approach because of changes in Government. It would impose non-tariff barriers on us and on the most important factor in production—workers themselves. Instead, we should aim for a reasonable and fair migration system that benefits us all.
Just so that no one confuses my remarks with those of the Minister, this is not the same immigration policy as that of the Government. We would rather welcome those who contribute to our wellbeing in the widest possible sense, and uphold their rights to a family life as equals in the workforce, and their rights as citizens when it comes to voting and access to public funds. I am sure that the Scottish National party would agree with that. “No taxation without representation” remains a great rallying cry, and we can add to that “no taxation without access to the benefits of taxation”. That should be our approach to the migrant workers we have welcomed here and their families.
Although I share the Scottish National party’s frustrations and many of their views on subjects such as immigration detention, I would say that the best way to have a fair, humane and economically sound immigration policy that benefits us all would be to see off the current Government. I am sure that the SNP would agree.
I reiterate that I welcome today’s motion, its tone and its overall approach, but we do not agree with the proposal to devolve immigration policy. I also note that the motion only calls for the Home Secretary to “engage positively” with that proposal. That is an entirely reasonable and democratic demand, given the status of the Scottish Government.

Mark Harper: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), but I must confess to being slightly confused. I listened to her opening remarks, in which she welcomed the motion from the SNP and said that she broadly agreed with it, but she then spent the rest of her speech going through all the areas where she did not agree with it. I do however welcome the fact that, post general election, she effectively confirmed what the  Labour conference said it supported last autumn. She confirmed that Labour basically wants an open-door policy for migrants, and she specifically said that she wanted migrants to have access to the benefits system from day one. It was very helpful that she confirmed that.
The hon. Lady also confirmed that Labour does not believe in having any detention centres, and she mentioned the recent Home Office flight. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), in his place, and as a former immigration Minister I congratulate him on the Home Office’s fortitude in ensuring that around 20 foreign national offenders guilty of very serious criminal offences have been removed from our country. They were not British citizens. They were foreign nationals who abused the hospitality our country offered them by committing very serious criminal offences, and I for one—I think I speak for many members of the public—am pleased that they are no longer here. I congratulate my hon. Friend on standing up to the pressure he was put under by those who forget that we are supposed to be in the business of protecting the public and removing serious offenders.
Let me turn to the motion on the Order Paper. In his wide-ranging speech, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) talked about Scotland as a proportion of the United Kingdom population and its share of migrants. It is very interesting to look at the data. We have a significant number of migrants coming to the United Kingdom, whether we look at it in net or gross terms, and it is very interesting that when we consider Scotland as a proportion of the United Kingdom’s population and do the same for the other constituent parts of the UK, and look at where migrants choose to go, it is clear that the gap between the number of migrants choosing to go to Scotland and its population is the biggest anywhere in the UK. In other words, most migrants who come to the United Kingdom prefer to go to England, Wales and Northern Ireland—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: Let me just finish the point, then I will of course take an intervention. That fact is relative to their populations, and after I have taken the intervention, I might set out one or two reasons why I believe that to be the case.

Pete Wishart: Of course, we remember the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution of the “Go Home” vans, which he introduced when he was immigration Minister—but we will leave that aside just now. By pointing out that such a low number of migrants are coming to Scotland, surely he is actually making the case for allowing Scotland to have the ability to recruit more migrants.

Mark Harper: First of all, I make no apologies for wanting people who are in the United Kingdom illegally to go back to their countries of origin. People should obey the rules and follow the law, and they should not be here when they shouldn’t be here. I make no apology for that.
The point I was making was that we need to look at the reasons why people may not be choosing to go to Scotland. One of the clear points made in the Scottish Government’s own paper, in which they look at the  experience of Canada and Australia, is that it is the economic performance of countries that determines their attractiveness to migrants. I simply note that the United Kingdom’s economy is forecast to grow more quickly than Scotland’s over the next four years, according to both the independent Office for Budget Responsibility and the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which says that the Scottish economy will grow by less than 1% in 2019, less than 1% in 2020, just over 1% in 2021 and just over 1% in 2022—significantly lower than the projected growth rate for the United Kingdom. That suggests to me that if the Scottish Government were more effective in increasing the Scottish growth rate, more migrants may choose to go to Scotland.

Stuart McDonald: This is a chicken and egg situation, and the right hon. Member has got it the wrong way around, if that is possible. The point is that all those papers and the MAC itself suggest that, if countries are able to attract more migrants, their economy will grow. We need the powers to attract and allow in more people, and to grow our economy faster. The Minister referred to that point on a previous occasion in the Home Affairs Committee. He was very good at pointing out how the tier 2 system was wholly unsuitable for Scotland. That is one of the key reasons why Scotland—and pretty much everywhere outside London—struggles to compete to attract migrants.

Mark Harper: I am very interested that the hon. Member says that. He was chastising people before for not having read the Scottish Government’s paper. In their paper, they talk about the Canadian experience. I mention Canada and Australia because those are the two models that the Scottish Government talk about, ignoring the fact that both Canada and Australia are geographically vast countries and their geographical experiences are not particularly relevant to the United Kingdom’s. On page 81 of their paper, the Scottish Government specifically say about the Canadian experience:
“Migrants reported that the most significant factor affecting retention in the province of nomination”—
in other words, migrants staying in the province where they originally went—
“was economic: onward movement was most likely to occur where they considered that better or more job opportunities were available outside of their original province. This points to the importance of linking provincial migration with labour market opportunities.”
The hon. Member has argued that London is a much more attractive place for migrants. Following the logic of the arguments made in his own paper would result in the conclusion that the Scottish Government would allow lots of people to go to Scotland, and that those people would then look across the United Kingdom at more attractive job opportunities, which he has just pointed out are in London; they would then not stay in Scotland, thus effectively nullifying the policy.

Patrick Grady: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain something to me—and I hope the Minister will pay attention—because we will all experience these kinds of cases in our surgeries. I have a young constituent who is from Australia. Her name is Jessica, she works for the Beatson cancer clinic in Glasgow and she wants to stay there. Her colleagues also want her to stay. She is making a hugely valuable  contribution to the workplace, the economy and the culture. But she cannot stay because of the arbitrary salary thresholds imposed by this Government, who are actively excluding people from our economy who want to stay here. That is why we need these powers in the Scottish Parliament.

Mark Harper: That is a very good question because it provides me with the opportunity to say one or two words about the Government’s proposals for their Australian-style points-based system, which allows for some of the flexibilities—the Minister alluded to them—that would deal with some of the concerns that Jessica might have.
Under those plans, which are to be published later this week, there would be skilled migrants who get points for a job offer at the appropriate skill level, which would clearly be appropriate for Jessica; a job offer with an approved sponsor company; and a salary of at least £25,600. The plans make it clear, on the score awarded for salary, that people on £23,000 will still be able to earn points, and those who earn less than £25,600 will score double points for working in a sector where there is a skills shortage. That is a more flexible approach than that taken at the moment. There would also be more points available for younger applicants and for those planning to work outside London, thus dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East about the attractiveness of the labour market in London. Given that this system has not yet come into force and has not yet been set out in detail, it would be sensible for us to at least give it an opportunity to see whether it deals with some of these complexities, and the experience of Jessica, before throwing it away.

Hannah Bardell: On what the Migration Advisory Committee says about the points-based system, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own Government have not provided sufficient information for it to advise on whether the current system or a future system will work well? It says in its report:
“We have little idea whether the current system works well because we have not been able to obtain relevant data. We recommend a pause in the proposed increases in the settlement income threshold. We also recommend that there should be a review of the criteria for settlement, though that can only be done if there is better data available”.
Does he agree that his Government seem to be thwarting the efforts of the Migration Advisory Committee, which does not seem to be in favour of the system that he is suggesting?

Mark Harper: No, I do not. The Migration Advisory Committee—the clue is in the name—provides advice to the Government. I am very pleased that we live in a country where decisions are taken by Ministers who are accountable to this House. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary setting out the Government’s plans once they have been approved by the Cabinet.
I have never quite understood one point. It was touched on by the hon. Member for Streatham, who speaks for the Opposition. It is the issue about pay and skills shortages. I suppose it is because people on the left broadly do not believe in a market economy, but my  view is that, if there are sectors of the economy where employers are having trouble recruiting people, that rather suggests that they should increase the pay in those sectors, or improve the training that they provide for people—the economic value to those constituents. We should not simply acquiesce in allowing businesses to import an unlimited number of people to keep down the wages of the people working in the sector. Sometimes, as a Conservative, that is an uncomfortable message to deliver, because we are the party of business and economic growth: that is certainly the view of business. Sometimes we should say to business, “You should not be able to employ an unlimited number of people from overseas and keep wages down; you should actually increase the salaries you pay to your staff or increase the training opportunities to improve their productivity.” The Government having that level of creative tension with business would be more healthy than simply allowing it to import cheap labour.

Peter Grant: If the response to staffing shortages and skills shortages is to pay people more, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that when the health service was experiencing desperate shortages of staff right across the board, his Government imposed year after year of public sector pay cuts in real terms?

Mark Harper: Opposition Members always find this tiresome—although it tends to be ones from the official Opposition—but the hon. Gentleman will know that when the Conservative Government came into office in 2010, we faced a significant deficit in the public finances—[Interruption.] SNP Members immediately start jeering, but it is true. That needed dealing with, and Government Members had to take some very difficult decisions to get the public finances in order; I commend Liberal Democrat Members, who took part in the coalition Government. I am surprised that Scottish nationalist Members of Parliament do not understand big deficits in the public finances, because Scotland has in its public finances a significant deficit of around 7%, which is significantly higher than the rest of the United Kingdom.

Neil Gray: I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the view of business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) outlined in his very good speech, considerable support was garnered from business groups and other stakeholders across civic Scotland, who supported the Scottish Government’s plan and thought it was a good idea. Does he therefore regret the fact that his Government took a whole 20 minutes to denounce and disagree with the Scottish Government’s proposal, and does he find that disrespectful to the groups who provided that support across civic Scotland?

Mark Harper: I will come back at the end of my remarks to what should happen, when I set out why I think the House should oppose the motion. On the point about business, the hon. Gentleman has just proved my point. Of course business—particularly big business—is in favour of having an open-door immigration system, which enables them to import labour from around the world, keep down wages and not have to pay people to reflect skills and training properly. I had this conversation with business when I was immigration Minister and subsequently. Sometimes we have to push back a bit and explain to businesses that they need to  increase their salaries and training and increase their productivity in order to pay those salaries. That is a good message for the public.

Jamie Stone: I do not rise in connection with the right hon. Gentleman’s reference to my party. To take a broader view of this issue, while his points are well made about the economy and pay and conditions, does he agree that attracting people who might be useful to our economy to move here, contribute to the economy and bring their families here is about more than just working conditions and the economy? It is also about services such as health, transport, education and, in the context of my constituency, even broadband connectivity.

Mark Harper: I do. I did not want to labour the point about all the areas in which the SNP-run Scottish Government are failing the people of Scotland—I simply focused on economic growth—but if I were pushed, I could focus on their underperformance on health and on education, as Scotland falls down—[Interruption.] I do not think that the Scottish Government missing all their targets for the performance of the health service is a laughing matter. The SNP ought to take that a little more seriously.
I have three more points to make before I conclude. The first is on enforcement. I challenged the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on this and drew attention to the fact that, in the Scottish Government’s proposals, there is no sponsorship role for employers—that enforcement mechanism would not be there—and no salary threshold. He pushed back and said that, if a person chose to work elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that is where we would catch them out, but he is forgetting something.
Many people wish to come here from many parts of the world—I do not blame them, because the United Kingdom is a very attractive country to come to—and we stop them coming here by not issuing them with a visa. Once they are in the country, it becomes quite difficult and very costly to remove them when they have no right to be here. They often work under the radar, illegally. They are often exploited by rogue landlords, and they may make an argument that they are claiming asylum, which means that we have to go through a long and complicated process to demonstrate that they do not have entitlement to be here before having to remove them. By not having sponsorship, or that mechanism for employers with a record of proven success in employing staff from overseas, the hon. Gentleman is throwing away that significant enforcement mechanism. We would open up that risk not just in Scotland but in the whole United Kingdom, which is one reason why I do not find his proposals acceptable.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should make the point to business that, if it invites in people at the low end of the income scale, there may be large set-up capital costs such as extra social housing, school provision, health provision and in-work benefits, which is a charge on the taxpayer and ultimately a charge on British employers?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend is exactly right.
To make my penultimate point, in the documents there are a number of references, as I have said, to Canada and Australia. Canada and Australia both  allow free movement around their countries. The point is made in the Scottish Government’s own document that there are significant problems in retaining staff who have come in on the regional visas in the areas where they were supposed to stay, largely driven by the more attractive economic offers in other parts of the country. That is a real challenge, given that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East accepted that the present system is that there are more attractive economic opportunities for migrants in other parts of the United Kingdom than in Scotland—that was his own argument—and I do not see anything in the document that suggests that the Scottish Government would be able to retain those migrants in Scotland.
Finally, to turn to the motion, I think that the hon. Gentleman and the SNP have got it the wrong way round. They have published a document and called on the Home Secretary to engage with them on their proposals. Given that the Government have not yet set out their proposals in detail and they have not been agreed by the Cabinet, a more sensible approach, now that we have left the European Union—that battle is over for now; given the SNP’s position on Brexit, it was challenging for it to accept that it was happening— would be for the SNP to engage with the Government. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who opened the debate and who I am pleased to see in his place, made it clear that his door was open. The SNP should engage with both the Home Office and the Scotland Office to look at how the measures that will be set out in our points-based system—I have set out one or two of them—could best engage with Scotland’s needs.
We are keen that we have an immigration system that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, to make every part of our country more dynamic, and to increase pay and opportunities for people across the United Kingdom. That is the best way of proceeding, so I suggest that the House, when the time comes later today, reject the motion. I urge the SNP to engage seriously with the Government. If it does so, it will find a listening ear and a willingness to engage on that basis, which is the best way for us all to move forward.

Tommy Sheppard: I fear that sometimes in politics people oppose propositions for the wrong reasons. I do not regard myself as immune from that tendency by the way, but quite often, people are in a political bunker, and they have predetermined attitudes about the meaning of a proposition. Before someone expresses even a single word in support of that proposition, their mind is made up on the basis of who is making the argument.
I fear that this is one of those occasions. No matter how convincing the arguments from SNP Members, the Government will not listen to them—those arguments will fall on deaf ears. I am saddened by that, because it is not a good way to approach such a serious subject. There are probably Government Members—I do not know whether I would include the Under-Secretary—who simply reject any proposition on visa controls or anything else from the SNP, because they would regard giving in or moving towards that position as being the thin end of the wedge of Scottish independence, so no quarter must be given.
Let me be clear, SNP Members very much want Scotland to become an independent country with full and absolute control over all matters to do with nationality and the movement of people into and out of the country. I very much look forward to the day—I hope it will not be too long ahead—when we can establish an immigration system in Scotland that gives people Scottish citizenship with a very generous attitude and encourages people to come and make their homes in our country from all corners of the globe: a country made up of first-class citizens rather than there being different attitudes to different people depending on where they come from. But that is not where we are, and it is not what is being proposed in this debate.
What is being proposed is a simple policy to have a work visa in one part of the United Kingdom because of very clear, overwhelming arguments in favour of it. I might almost suggest that a Unionist-minded politician could support many of the propositions contained in this motion, because the purpose behind it is to try and make up for and deal with the consequences of Scotland being part of a centralised single state where economic planning, and strategic economic planning in particular, is very much done from the centre and where the Scottish economy risks becoming a peripheral regional economy in a much larger entity.
We all know the economic pressures that that creates. I moved to this city in the 1980s for work, as did many other people I know. It is still happening today—this gravitational pull that draws people in and overheats the south-east of England. That is precisely why a one-size-fits-all policy is not the answer to anything.
For the last 20 years or so the Scottish population has been growing slightly, but only as a result of immigration; had it not been for that, the population would have been in decline. For that period up until the end of this year, we have been blessed in many ways by having access to the free movement of people across this continent, which has allowed many people from other European countries to come and make their home and live and work in Scotland. But now that that is at threat of disappearing, it is all the more important that we address what sort of immigration system we have in the United Kingdom and whether Scotland, as part of that, is going to have its needs satisfied. And I would say that with the current proposals on offer—

John Redwood: rose—

Tommy Sheppard: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten me, but from what I know of the current proposals on offer, that is most definitely not the case.

John Redwood: Part of centralising Scotland and England and the rest of the Union in a single economic policy is, of course, sharing a currency, so does the hon. Gentleman now think that Scotland should leave the pound in order to have an independent policy, because otherwise it would obviously be very dependent?

Tommy Sheppard: I am not sure of the relevance of that question to the current debate, but let me answer. It will not be too many years until Scotland is a strong and prosperous economy with its own currency, its own central bank and punching well above its weight compared with today.
Various arguments have already been made against this proposal by those on the Government Benches, but they do not hold water, because they are not, in essence, arguments against what is being proposed—

Simon Hoare: rose—

Tommy Sheppard: Let’s see if there is another one before I start going through them.

Simon Hoare: Clearly the buoyancy of the economy and how it works would either attract migrants to Scotland or not, but in the situation of independence, my understanding is that SNP policy is to rejoin the European Union—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] SNP Members confirm that from a sedentary position. In that case, surely the currency of Scotland would be the euro.

Tommy Sheppard: No it would not, nor is there any requirement for it to be so. This is very much the season of dead cats, and I am not going to respond to that one being thrown on the table; I am going to focus on the arguments about having a Scottish visa.
There are some arguments that have been put against this that I want to deal with. The first is the suggestion that this is some sort of backdoor into the United Kingdom; that we are going to open a portal through which lots of migrants are suddenly going to come to the shores of Britain and then find their way to the constituencies of Government Members and cause unknown terror for their constituents.
Much as they might want to blow those dog whistles and whip up fears about immigration, that is not what is being proposed. We are proposing a simple measure that could be enforced through as simple a mechanism as the national insurance stamp, where somebody has the right to seek employment, be employed and pay tax in Scotland, but not in any other part of the United Kingdom. What would happen if they decided they were going to get on a train and take a job in London? They would give their details to their employer, who would say, “I’m sorry, we can’t actually make this offer of a job because you don’t meet the requirements to work in this part of the United Kingdom. You are only validated for working in Scotland.” It might be said, “But what would happen if people just ignored that and somehow unofficially or illegally went to seek work?” Well, that could happen, but that could happen now. This argument makes no difference to that actually happening. In fact, that is an argument for controlling the work permit situation within the United Kingdom to a much better extent than it is being done now.
The other point being suggested—we have heard this several times—is that somehow the SNP proposals are an alternative to the grand, yet-to-be-unveiled new immigration system that the United Kingdom is going to have. That has been said, I think, four or five times already in the debate, but Members are deaf to our arguments. We are not saying that this is a delete-all-and-insert policy; we are saying that this could be brought in in addition to the United Kingdom procedures to provide for the very particular circumstances that operate in Scotland.
The other argument that has been thrown against us is, “What’s so exceptional about Scotland? Why Scotland? You could make this argument about other parts of the  United Kingdom.” Perhaps, but probably not a whole country and probably not a whole country where there is already a semi-autonomous devolved system of government—an Administration—where it would be simple to bring these proposals in. I say to Conservative Members: embrace this idea, because what if it worked? Then it would be an argument for having provincial government in England and for having differentiated systems that take into account the fact that this is a large country with very diverse economic needs in different parts of it. If Conservative Members and the Government are serious about their platitudes on investment and growth in the north of England, then this might be one of the vehicles they could choose to deliver that.
This debate takes place in a context. I said at the beginning that we were not advocating Scottish independence. This is a very mild-mannered proposal to try to cater for particular economic circumstances in Scotland: an additional power to a Scottish Government who already have significant powers in many other related aspects of social policy. But understand the context in which we are having this debate. I know that the Government have the numbers to defeat this proposal in the Lobby tonight. Everybody watching this debate knows that this Government have more votes throughout the United Kingdom than the Scottish National party. But understand and understand this well: while the Conservative party has a mandate in most of the United Kingdom and in England in particular, it has no mandate whatsoever in Scotland. It was roundly defeated in Scotland at the general election on 12 December when people voted for 80% of their representatives to this place to come from the Scottish National party.
People are watching debates such as this very carefully. There is a clear desire and aspiration now in Scotland for people to be able to choose their own future: to be able to make a judgment as to whether the course that the United Kingdom has set, by leaving the European Union and setting itself up in a fairly insular and isolated situation, is the path we wish to follow. Many people—a clear majority of people—would express the wish that we should choose a different path, an independent path where we control our own destiny, make our decisions, make our own mistakes and learn from them, because the people who live in that country, and only the people who live in that country, have the right to determine how they are governed. That sentiment is growing now in Scotland. Much as the Government may want to put their head in the sand and ignore it, that is happening. I caution them to engage with public opinion in Scotland. Every time they refuse to do so, they simply fuel the appetite for change. They fuel the number of people who say, “We don’t want to put up with this any more. We now look with fresh eyes at the alternatives on offer.”
In many ways, the Government, since the election, have been doing the SNP’s job for it. The opinion polls are rising. More and more people in Scotland are demanding and getting behind the cause of independence, and we have not even started the campaign. This is all the work of the United Kingdom Government. If they throw out sensible proposals such as this one—which would be to the benefit of the Scottish economy and the people in Scotland, and might also be something sensible while Scotland remains in the United Kingdom—and ignore the arguments that we are making, they will fuel that appetite and desire even more.

Miriam Cates: Thank you for allowing me to make my maiden speech, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My interest in this place began when I was 11 years old and somehow I acquired an ancient, long-wave radio that would only tune to Radio 4. In the 1990s, before YouTube and Candy Crush, I had to make do with the “Today” programme and “Westminster Hour”, but I was hooked—captivated by the history of our democracy, the workings of our politics and its power to bring change.
My first big political experience was the 1997 general election. Growing up in Sheffield, in what was the capital of the socialist republic of South Yorkshire, this was no ordinary election. I was fascinated by the whole campaign and I sent off for and displayed posters from every single political party, including the Referendum party. I even had a Liberal Democrat board on a post in our front garden, but we all make errors of judgment in our youth.
Despite this early interest, I did not become involved in party politics for another two decades, instead pursuing a teaching career, setting up a business with my husband and spending rather a lot of time being pregnant and changing nappies. Five years ago, I became a parish councillor, and I started to see the opportunities for elected representatives to bring real change. To cut a short story even shorter, I found my home in the Conservative party and I now stand before you as the Member of Parliament for Penistone and Stocksbridge. Apart from a three-year stint at university, I have lived in the Sheffield area for my whole life, so it is a profound privilege to represent a community that I call home.
Penistone and Stocksbridge is a truly remarkable constituency. We have stunning scenery, moorland and reservoirs. We have beautiful rural villages like Bolsterstone, Wortley and Cawthorne. We have the historic market town of Penistone, which received its market charter in 1290 and where Penistone Grammar School, founded in 1392, still provides an excellent education to local children. The school’s original motto was “Disce Aut Discede”, which means learn or leave. This sentiment clearly held sway in the 2016 referendum, where the constituency judged that the EU had failed to learn and so we should indeed leave.
The town of Stocksbridge, with its industrious history of steel manufacture, boasts the proud legacy of Mr Samuel Fox, inventor of the Paragon umbrella frame, and whose wire factories were responsible for the development of the town we know today. We have many other wonderful communities, like Dodworth, Pogmoor, Chapeltown, Ecclesfield, High Green, Grenoside and Burncross, and numerous rural villages, each with their own unique character.
Ten years ago, I moved to Oughtibridge, one of these villages, and, being until this point a city girl, I was utterly unaware of the strength and depth of community that I was about to encounter. Throwing myself into village life, I discovered voluntary groups, the school PTA, the local church and the parish council, bringing together people of all ages and from all walks of life. The wonderful thing about a village is that when everyone shares the same school, the same park and the same pub, it is natural to form friendships that are based on a common interest and a common geography, and not on social background or political worldview.
It was in my capacity as a parish councillor that I first met my predecessor, Angela Smith. I found her to be hard-working, sincere, thoughtful and helpful, and I want to thank Angela for the part that she played in securing an £8 million investment in the Fox Valley shopping centre, which has been responsible for significant regeneration in Stocksbridge and the surrounding area. In more recent times, Angela became known for her inclination to switch allegiances, being, at different times during 2019, a member of no fewer than five political parties or groups. I am heartily glad that the people of Penistone and Stocksbridge shared this enthusiasm for switching parties and in December elected me as their first Conservative MP. On the topic of Scottish migration, perhaps the Scottish Government would want to offer a visa to any of my constituents who want to complete the set and experience representation by the SNP, although I feel sure they would only require a temporary visa.
We have heard much about how we Conservatives won seats such as Penistone and Stocksbridge for the first time. Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I understand that many people lent me their votes, and I take seriously my responsibility to deliver on the commitments we made. One of the most important of these commitments is the pledge to radically improve public transport in the north of England. When I was first selected as a parliamentary candidate, I began by going around our communities asking people what changes they would like to see, and public transport was raised time and again.
We desperately need to level up our northern transport and infrastructure. Public transport is not just about getting people from A to B; it connects people with well- paid jobs, training and education, hospital appointments and shops, and it prevents loneliness and isolation. Transport is the key to spreading opportunity and investment. That is why I am campaigning with the Don Valley railway group to see a Stocksbridge to Sheffield passenger train line reinstated and with Thurgoland Parish Council public transport working group to secure better rural bus services. I am delighted therefore by today’s announcement on funding for buses and trains, which demonstrates that this one nation Conservative Government are committed to an ambitious programme of levelling up.
Levelling up is not just about financial investment, bricks and mortar, and miles of train track. The national soul-searching of the past four years has demonstrated that there are areas of our country, particularly northern towns such as Penistone and Stocksbridge, that have been left behind—not just in an economic sense, although that is certainly the case, but in terms of how our communities and our culture are understood and valued as part of our national life. As I said, I have lived in the area my whole life, and that is by no means unusual. Our towns and villages are wonderful places to live, not least because of the strength and depth of community life. Social mobility should not mean having to leave your home, your family and your community to find work, training or investment. We do have ambition, aspiration and talent, but we are also rooted in a deep sense of place. We need opportunities right in the heart of our communities, and this Government’s initiatives, such as the towns fund and the shared prosperity fund, will help us to deliver.
I want to finish where I started. A quarter of a century on from when my interest in this place began, I still believe that politics has the power to bring change and that we should celebrate our history as a democratic nation—not a perfect history by any means, and one with many dark moments, but one where the trend has been towards progress and fairness. To continue this progress we must begin to heal the very real divides that have been exposed, between north and south, towns and cities, leave and remain, old and young. We need to find a way to recognise and value our differences while celebrating what we have in common as citizens of this great nation. However different our life experiences, our place of birth, our social background, we have a shared identity as human beings. Whether this identity derives from an acceptance of our intrinsic worth as people or a belief, like mine, that we are all children of the same heavenly father, we need to cherish what we have in common.
There are many different opinions in this country, and we have given each other many different labels, but the vast majority of us want to make this nation a better place for everyone who lives here. We may disagree, sometimes passionately, about how that should be done, but if we can respect each other’s motives and leave the labels behind, be slow to judge and quick to forgive, the healing will begin. December marked a fresh start for our democracy, and a fresh start for Penistone and Stocksbridge. I am honoured to serve this wonderful constituency, and I will work hard to deliver for all of my constituents.

Owen Thompson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). Listening to her describe her constituency, I was tempted to take her up on the offer of a visa, but I am a bit too attached to my own community, although others might take her up on that.
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make my first full contribution since my return to Parliament. If you will indulge me, I shall take a moment to recognise the contribution made by Danielle Rowley, from whom I regained my seat in December. While I may disagree with Danielle on many subjects, there are probably more on which we agree, not least our wish to see the best for our community of Midlothian. I know all too well how tough it can be when the results do not go your way on election night—not only for Members but for their staff teams—so I wish Danielle and her former team the very best for the future.
Let me now turn to this afternoon’s debate. We have heard from my hon. Friends many of the reasons why it is so vital for Scotland to have an immigration system that actually supports our economy, not one that stifles it. Unfortunately, we find ourselves with an imposed UK Government who seem to care not one bit what is in the best interests of Scotland. Perhaps that explains why their party has not won an election in Scotland since the 1950s.
The impacts of the Government’s narrow-mindedness will indeed be significant for my constituency of Midlothian. We know that migrant workers are more likely to work in sectors such as retail, manufacturing, education, health and social care, all of which are vitally important to the Midlothian economy. Nineteen per cent. of workers  in Midlothian are employed in retail and wholesale, a figure that is over 5% higher than the Scottish average. Food and drink alone contribute more than £7 million to our local economy. We also have higher than average employment in education and in manufacturing, sectors in which we have long relied on international workers from the EU and elsewhere. So when we look at the approach taken by the Government, which completely ignores the needs of Scotland, it is easy to see the catastrophic effect that it could have on my community.
There are also a great many positive things happening in Midlothian. It is often said that we are the fastest-growing local authority area in Scotland. That may well be the case, and it brings real opportunities. According to research compiled for Skills Development Scotland, the largest contributing region to the Scottish economy in 2019 was Edinburgh, East and Midlothian, with a gross value added of £26.6 billion, or 19% of Scotland’s total output. The fastest growth is in the professional, scientific and technical activities sector, with an average growth rate of 3.3%, and that includes life sciences.
I know that some Members may wonder why this is such a big deal for a former mining community, but Midlothian is the local authority area in Scotland with the highest proportion of jobs in the life sciences sector. That includes the Midlothian Science Zone, the Roslin Institute, Moredun, the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Scotland's Rural College, and the Edinburgh University Easter Bush Campus. At Easter Bush alone, 26% of the workforce is from outside the UK. Employment in the sector has increased by 12% over the last year across Scotland, and exports have also increased by 12%.
This is a massive and growing success story, supported by smart policy from the Scottish Government, yet while the Scottish Government seek to drive forward our global competitiveness, barrier-building policies from this place are cutting the legs from under us. The lack of willingness on the part of the UK Government even to contemplate the proposals from the Scottish Government shows a contempt for the communities of Scotland, and they will pay the price for their narrow-minded intransigence.
We were told to live in a union of equals, to lead not leave, and that we would be pooling and sharing. That was all hollow rhetoric that we can now see through. Thankfully, however, our communities do not need to be saddled with the destructive polices of yet another Tory Government. Thatcher decimated the Midlothian communities when she obliterated the mining industry, and I am certainly not going to stand by and watch as this Government commit the modern-day equivalent. The people of Scotland, and the people of Midlothian, can follow another path—an independent path. That day is coming, and it is coming soon.

Andrew Bowie: We have a problem in Scotland, as I think everyone has recognised. [Interruption.] We have many problems in Scotland, most of them emanating from Holyrood, but that is for another day.
As a country, we are simply not attracting enough people to Scotland to live, work or invest. According to the Office for National Statistics, between 2016 and 2018 Scotland attracted, on average, only 8% of immigrants  to the UK, fewer than the north-west of England, Yorkshire and the Humber, the west midlands, the east of England, the south-east, London and the south-west.

Angus MacNeil: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that one of the problems is that when migrant workers are attracted to come to live in our communities, there are pen pushers at the Home Office who prevent them from coming? I am thinking particularly of the fishing communities on the west coast that are looking for non-European economic area labour. Year upon year, one person in Westminster says no even though the communities say yes.

Andrew Bowie: It might surprise the House to hear that I agree with the hon. Member, although not to the extent of describing some of the hard-working civil servants in the Home Office as pen pushers. They are doing a valuable job, but I think we have to look more imaginatively at how we attract labour to the sectors that are crying out for them, and particularly to the fisheries on the west coast of Scotland, which he ably represents in this House.
Compared with what we were previously, we are now a country of in-migration. We have a growing population in Scotland, but if Scotland’s economy is to continue to grow, there is a concern that, even with freedom of movement, we are not attracting enough people to make up for what will soon become a declining population through a simple lack of natural growth, with deaths already outnumbering births. Last year, there were already 7,000 more deaths than births in Scotland, and the problem is even more stark in rural communities.
There is not a country in the world where the Scots have not left their mark. By virtue of our being part of a larger United Kingdom, the door was open to Scots to travel the world and to build, engineer and prosper in every corner of the globe. That is a fact that, as Scots, we are incredibly proud of.

Mhairi Black: Would the hon. Member at least accept that there has been a constant drain on Scottish talent over the last 50-odd years, through people moving from Scotland to London? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out earlier, talent must move to London because that is where all the opportunity lies, because of the policies of this place.

Andrew Bowie: Yet again, I do not disagree with the hon. Member. It is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to make the economy grow in Scotland, so we can keep talent north of the border and grow the economies in Aberdeenshire, which I represent, and in Edinburgh and Glasgow, near to her constituency. It is for all of us to do that, so that people do not feel the need to move out of Scotland to find success.

Neil Gray: Does the hon. Member therefore regret the fact that it took just 20 minutes for the Government to turn down the Scottish Government’s proposal, which was supported by so many stakeholders and people in civic society across Scotland?

Andrew Bowie: If the hon. Member will have patience, I will come to that later in my speech.
I return to the subject of Scotland building the world, which was fantastic, but of course it came at a price. Historically, Scotland was a country of out-migration and population decline, and while recent immigration has reversed that trend, although by no means enough, the legacy in some communities, particularly rural communities, remains. Rural communities lost not only those who left initially but the generations who would have come after them. I represent a rural constituency in the north-east of Scotland, a part of the world dominated by the energy sector. Thankfully, this means that we have little problem with unemployment, but it brings its own problems, especially for rural industries. I am acutely aware of those issues. That is why it is now more important than ever, as we complete the process of transitioning out of the EU, that we should have a measured and reasonable debate about the future of our immigration system, and particularly how it relates to Scottish agriculture. Put simply, Scottish agriculture needs and relies on seasonal labour. If we are to have this sensible and reasonable debate—as we are doing here in the Chamber today—about immigration post Brexit in Scotland, it is vital to recognise that the issues surrounding seasonal labour are not caused solely by Brexit.

David Duguid: My hon. Friend is bringing up the issues that we have in agriculture not just in Scotland but around the UK in places such as Lincolnshire and East Anglia. The issue that I know well, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), is also shared by the fishing communities of Northern Ireland. So is there any reason why a UK immigration policy cannot address all these issues, particularly with 59 representatives of Scottish seats in this place who all have a voice to help to achieve that?

Andrew Bowie: No, I do not think there is any reason why a UK-wide system could not address those issues. In fact, on the very issue of attracting talent to the fisheries sector, I have written to the Home Secretary to ask if we could develop similar processes to the one we have for seasonal agricultural labour for those who want to engage in the fisheries sector. There is absolutely no reason why we could not find a solution within the wider UK framework.
Just as Scotland has been failing to attract many immigrants to settle in Scotland while we were a member of the EU, so the number of seasonal workers willing to travel to Scotland to perform seasonal labour has been in decline for some years. Castleton Farm, for example, in my constituency—best jam, bar none, you will ever taste—saw a 15% shortage of seasonal labour last summer, leading to an estimated loss of over 100 tonnes of produce. And that was while we remained in the EU. In the same way as we must look at why Scotland is not attracting enough immigrants to stay in Scotland, we must also ask why Scottish farming is not attracting enough labour.
Part of the reason, of course, is that there is a labour shortage across Europe. Belgian, German and Irish farmers are increasingly sourcing their seasonal labour from outside the EU, chiefly from countries such as Ukraine. Non-EU seasonal labour is evidently part of  the solution in Scotland, just as it is in agriculture in the remaining 27 states. Much of the decline in available European labour is down to the rapid and, of course, welcome progress that many eastern European countries have made in developing their own domestic economies.

Angus MacNeil: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earlier kind words, but can I put the political point to him that Ireland can look further and act on its wishes because it has the independence to do so? Unfortunately, Scotland does not have the independence to make the decisions that Ireland can make to get labour from Ukraine when it needs it.

Andrew Bowie: The hon. Gentleman obviously makes a very good point. However, as I said in answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), there is no reason why we cannot address those issues as part of a wider UK immigration system.
Those who want to travel to work in agriculture have other options apart from Scotland, and Scottish farmers have been in direct competition for available labour with French and German farmers for some time, as well as with farmers from across the rest of the UK. I was pleased to see that the Government have pledged to extend the pilot of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to 10,000 workers a year, up from the current limit of 2,500—thanks to the lobbying and hard work of Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, I might say. That is a step in the right direction, but I hope it is a signal of intent and the beginning of a direction of travel. I also hope it will be delivered in a timely fashion. It is critical that farmers have time to plan for next summer.

Dave Doogan: I am very concerned that my constituency neighbour is talking about the opportunity for farmers to prepare for next year. It is this year that farmers are trying to prepare for. He should also sound a note of caution when he celebrates the increase to 10,000, because that figure is still patently insufficient—that is what the industry is telling us. Why are the Government not listening? An independent Scotland would listen.

Andrew Bowie: Although I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s point on an independent Scotland, I completely agree with his other point, and that is why I have called for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to be increased. Somewhere in the realm of 70,000 would be a reasonable number, and that is something else that I have asked the Home Secretary to comment on. That is why I said I hoped the increase from 2,500 to 10,000 was a signal of intent, and a direction of travel. I hope the number will grow further over the next few years.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about preparing for this year, I would remind him that we still remain, and we still have freedom of movement. It is for next year, when we will be outside the EU and not have free movement, that farmers will need to have certainty.

Carol Monaghan: Believe it or not, I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he must appreciate that some of the issues that he raises will mean labour  shortages this year. They are issues because of Brexit and because people currently living in Europe do not feel welcome, or do not know whether they will be able to come here. That message is not getting out to those who would still be able to come here this summer.

Andrew Bowie: If people do not feel welcome here, or if they feel they will not have certainty when they come here, it is a gross misrepresentation of the position of this Government and of the situation in this country. Everybody in this Chamber and across the country needs to show that our doors are open to anybody who wants to come here to contribute, work hard and play by the rules. That has been the position of this Government and the Conservative party for many years, and it will continue to be so.
There are wider issues in attracting people to work and invest in Scotland. I do not think anyone on either side of the House has all the answers. This Government are committed to introducing a points-based system that will attract the people we need to these shores, while maintaining our commitment always to be the open and welcoming place this country has always been. That is the right thing to do. It is what we promised in our manifesto and, of course, we must deliver it.
We must think imaginatively about how we address the specific issues in Scotland, and we must do so in a non-partisan and constructive fashion. That is why I read the Scottish Government’s paper, “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper”, from cover to cover, and I found very little with which I can disagree. It is a useful contribution to the wider debate about how we deal with immigration in this country.
This is an important debate, and it is one we must get right. However, I do not think a separate Scottish visa is the right way to go, because of all the complexities and challenges it would bring. I urge everyone in both of Scotland’s Governments to think imaginatively and to work together, as we should on quite a few issues, so that we can find a solution and prosper together, as the United Kingdom.

Alison Thewliss: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), because he makes some interesting points. Although we disagree on how these issues might be resolved, it is interesting to hear his views.
Of all the constituencies in Scotland, Glasgow Central has the most constituents who were not born in the UK. I have been totting up the Library’s figures from the 2011 census and, with 21,283, I have more people in my constituency who were not born in the UK than the five previous Conservative speakers put together, so I will take no lessons on the value of immigration to my constituency from people who have so little immigration and, I am sure, so few concerns raised at their surgeries.
Week in and week out, I have people in tears at my surgeries because of how this UK Government and the Home Office have treated them. They have been treated without respect, they have been treated arbitrarily and they have been treated cruelly for many years. Something has to change, and this is a small proposal from the Scottish Government to mitigate some of that damage.  One of my reasons for supporting independence is that I do not want people to go through what my constituents have been through at the hands of the UK Government.
Have no doubt, the SNP believes immigration is a good thing. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said, we are a country that has suffered from emigration over many years, with our people leaving and going to other countries. We have no right to deny people the chance to come and make their home in Scotland, and to do us the privilege of making their lives here.
Not only is the UK Government’s policy on immigration immoral in many ways, but it makes no economic sense. As we are all aware, Scotland has an ageing population. We need to grow our population to keep our economy afloat and to help people have a decent standard of living in old age. The Tories have decimated support for families and, through policies such as the two-child limit and the rape clause, they have actively discouraged people from having more children. The only remaining option is to encourage migration, but they have not done that, either. Instead, they have imposed arbitrary targets on migration over the years, which is sheer economic illiteracy. It is completely unsustainable.
Conservative Members have talked about attractiveness, but we are fighting that battle with one hand behind our back because of the hostile environment, the “Go Home” vans and the Home Office’s policies. We can only do our best to try to mitigate that. We can only do our best to say that Scotland is a welcoming country, that we want people to come and we want them to stay.
For the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has 3,014 non-UK citizens, to tell me that my constituency and my country are unattractive is, frankly, insulting. Unless substantial changes are made to Scotland’s ability to encourage immigration, we are looking at a ticking demographic time bomb. Average earnings in Scotland are less than £24,000 a year, but the immigration salary threshold is £30,000. What is that a measure of? It is certainly not a measure of how much a person is valued. How precious are the workers and care nurses in hospitals to a family? How valuable are social care workers to our future? It is shameful that any arbitrary value has been put on people who choose to come to build their lives here. That arbitrary target is above what can be reasonably earned by skilled worker.
Recently, a constituent came to my surgery who worked by day as a mortgage adviser in a bank—one would imagine that is a fairly good, high-profile, skilled job—and by night as a shelf stacker in a supermarket. He was working all the hours he could get so that his wife and son could come to live in Scotland. He should not be absolutely wearing himself down to do that. He is doing a good job that is valuable. We think it is important to society, but that is not how he felt. He felt as though he was doing everything he could against a system that did not even care—that did not even value him. I get this time and time again at my surgeries.

Jamie Stone: I am listening with great interest to a well thought out speech. Members will recall that some months ago I unwittingly invited the former Prime Minister to accompany me to a hotel in the highlands and laughter overtook the Chamber. The point I was making was that the hotel and tourism businesses in the  highlands depend on migrant workers. That was a problem then and I suspect it will be a problem now. I want to put that on the record, because we need to remember it.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. As a member of the all-party group on hospitality, I agree very much that that sector needs to have people coming in here to do those jobs and that we value them as well, because they bring not only their skills to our restaurants and catering services, but their food, which we enjoy. We should thank them, rather than making them feel unwelcome.
Let me move on to people in the care sector and the issues they face. A couple came to see me on 16 December 2015, having worked in care homes and been very much valued there. They were then at the point of working in their care home voluntarily because the Home Office had rescinded their right to work. They had a son they are putting through school. They came to see me at my surgery on 13 January to say that finally, after five years, they had been granted their status. They were looking forward to going back to work in the care home, because that care home had kept the faith that they would eventually get the chance to work and be paid for it. During that period of many years they were hosted by volunteers from Positive Action in Housing, and they were supported by the British Red Cross, their solicitors McGlashan MacKay and a range of services that provided them with food for free, with food banks and with other things. They had to come to my office to get school uniforms for their growing son. During that time they were destitute. What does that say to that family? They want to come here and work hard, they are in a valuable role, but the Home Office says, “No, actually, we don’t need you.” We know that we do. We know that we need people in the care sector, yet a couple who have dedicated their lives to caring are being told that they cannot do that. So I have no confidence in the UK Government to make the required changes that will allow constituents such as these to manage their lives, to be a success and to feel welcome in this country.

Angus MacNeil: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) about this being a well thought out speech. I also echo his point about hotels and my hon. Friend’s point about the care sector. At the heart of this debate is surely the one-size-fits-all approach the UK Government take. They do not do what Switzerland or Canada do; they think that Whitehall and Westminster know best, but in the west highlands we have needs, and Glasgow has needs. We need to have a decentralised policy—not one that suits the headline writers of the Daily Mail, but one that suits Scotland.

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. In many ways, his constituency could not be any more different from mine, but the needs are not being catered for by the Home Office in any way.
We have been expecting an announcement from the Government on what the new post-Brexit immigration policy will look like, and there has been a lot of speculation that we will have an Australian-style points-based system. However, there has been no acknowledgement that Australia’s system allows for a degree of autonomy for  territories to decide their own criteria on migration, with the ability to adjust their policy to their own diverse needs. There has been no acknowledgement, either, that the Australian system is much more generous than the one we have here just now, or that in her first speech after she demitted office as Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) got up and said pretty much to the Home Office, “Good luck. We looked at it.” So I wish the Minister all the best of luck in trying to establish a system that does not have the evidence to back it up.
We on the SNP Benches have long called for a separate immigration policy for Scotland, and we have long been told by the UK Government that that would not work. We do not believe them on that, as on so many other things, because research from the Fraser of Allander Institute and the David Hume Institute has shown not only that it would work but that it is vital if Scotland is to meet the demographic challenges of the future. It is not good enough for the UK Government to take this one-size-fits-all approach when there are pressing concerns in Scotland. If they will not take action to address this issue, perhaps they should allow the people of Scotland to decide for themselves who they want to be in charge.
If you will indulge me and allow it, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to highlight a couple of cases from my recent casework. The Scottish Government said as part of their Budget last week that they are going to look to set up some means of addressing the issue of “no recourse to public funds”. This relates to what the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean said about people not being allowed to access the benefits system in any way. I had a woman who had been coming to my surgeries for many years. She was No. 3 on my books after the election in 2015. She was working hard in a low-paid role and doing everything that she could but, because she had no recourse to public funds, she was just about managing the rent and her electricity, but she could not buy Christmas presents or school uniforms or put food on the table. That is not fair: she is doing everything that she can, yet because of “no recourse to public funds” she cannot do anything about it. The Home Office is sneaky on this, because every time somebody tries to find a workaround for “no recourse to public funds”, the Home Office promptly shuts it down. The Scottish Government want to help. The Scottish Government do not want people to face destitution. It is immoral and wrong for the UK Home Office to decide that it wants to make people destitute and to make people struggle so hard that they want to leave this country in poverty.
I also wish to mention the case of a particular constituent who came to me. I do not want to mention names because the case is quite sensitive, but this man is a local imam and his wife had complications giving birth, lost 17 litres of blood and was given a transfusion during a horrific ordeal in her pregnancy. They applied for the imam’s mother to come over to support her after the birth, because she was in desperate need and, because of parental leave issues, he had to go back to work. The Home Office refused that reasonable visitor’s visa. There is a lack of compassion that runs through the Home Office and prevents people from getting visitors’ visas on very reasonable grounds. Week in, week out, I see people who are desperate, broken and sad. They are people who want to show off Scotland and their new  home. Members have talked about not being welcoming enough; the visitor visa system, which refuses people for no reason whatsoever other than the fact that they come from a country where people are brown, is a system that cannot stand and must stop. [Interruption.] The hon. Member shakes his head; he can come and sit in my surgery. [Interruption.] He is looking about. You know who you are. The Minister, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), shakes his head; he can come and sit in my surgery and he can listen to the people who come to my surgeries from particular countries who get refused visitor visas time and time again.

Douglas Ross: I am sure the hon. Lady did not mean to mislead the House, but I can assure her that I did not move my head in any way. I am listening intently to her speech and the cases she is raising. It would be wrong to mislead the House and people watching by suggesting that I did otherwise.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Member moved his head. Perhaps he was not shaking it. He certainly did not look like he was taking on the points that I raised.
The point is that not all constituencies are the same. Perhaps I could forgive those on the Tory Benches who do not have constituencies that look like mine and who do not have surgeries that feel as desperate and as sad as mine. I invite them to come and sit in my surgeries if they want to—if they are willing to and are bold enough to—because they need to know that the system as it stands does not work. It does not work for people, businesses or the economy at large.

David Duguid: rose—

Alison Thewliss: I am just finishing up.
If Members on the Tory Benches are telling me that they know better than the experience of my constituents at my surgeries every week, they are wrong. If the Labour party is telling us that it will all be fine if we wait for an indeterminate period of time until Labour comes back into office, when things will be better, I am sorry but I do not believe that, either. I do not think that is good enough. How long should my constituents have to put up with this? Would it not be better if we had the full powers of a normal independent nation, and could support ourselves and decide who is worthy of coming into our country and doing us the honour of making Scotland their home?

Simon Hoare: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Although I did not agree with everything that she said—she will not be surprised by that—whenever she speaks in this place, her sincerity and the affection that she has for her constituents and the work that she does on their behalf shine through every word that she says.
While I am feeling in a magnanimous mood, may I also congratulate—for what it is worth, coming from me—the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is new to the Front Bench and gave a compelling speech that was professionally delivered? Of course, it paled in comparison with the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge  (Miriam Cates), which the House was very interested to hear—although she is not that interested to hear what I have to say about her speech; she has left her place. There we are. That is the benefit of making a maiden speech.
A number of Members on the Opposition Benches have referenced the Migration Advisory Committee. I have to say that, if I had my way, I would abolish it—in the same way that I would either abolish or ignore the organisation Migration Watch. Neither of them is anywhere on pace when it comes to the needs that our country, as a united country, faces when it comes to migration. In a post-EU membership age, it is perfectly proper that our immigration policies, to meet all quarters of the United Kingdom, are forged in this place by Ministers, scrutinised by this House and approved, and then they can change. There should be receptiveness and fluidity within whatever system we alight on to meet the needs of our country.

Angus MacNeil: I could perhaps double underline what the hon. Gentleman said about the Migration Advisory Committee, which opines on all various levels of skill. We have challenged the MAC: if it thinks that skilled workers who are going to work on fishing boats are not that skilled, would one of the people on the MAC care to go out on a fishing boat and show us how unskilled the job is? We have yet to see one of them, after a number of years of asking.

Simon Hoare: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I welcome wholeheartedly what appears to be the mood music coming out of No. 10 from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister: scant regard is going to be paid to the MAC’s advice on a salary threshold. It is entirely immoral to put a value on a person principally predicated on what they earn. There are millions of people in this country who do vital work— Members across the House have referenced them—whether it is in agriculture, hospitality, social care, or the national health service. Some of those jobs will be skilled, and some of them will not be skilled, but they are absolutely vital. I always think to myself that the skilled Nobel prize winner, or the great scientist coming up with some whizzy thing, needs the person in the despatch department to pack it up and send it out, and make sure that the factory or the laboratory is clean. A functioning economy is a network: it is a spider’s web of different skills at different pay grades, of different people all making a contribution.

Angus MacNeil: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being very generous. I have a point to add to the excellent point that he made about salaries. Again, there is a centralisation of thinking. We know that average salaries are not the same across Scotland—I am talking here about Na h-Eileanan an Iar, as well as other places. They differ again, depending on whether the policy is set in London, Manchester, or Birmingham. The idea that salaries are uniform across the United Kingdom is clearly a nutty one. I am glad to hear that it is going.

Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is not just the regional and county variations, but the spending power of that salary. A salary of £20,000 earned in North Dorset is going to get someone far more than they would get if they were living in north Westminster or north Harrow—[Interruption.] Or Chelmsford, says  my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point. I think my figures are correct, but the average annual take-home salary is now £24,500. In North Dorset, it is £18,500. There are huge variations and it is just 122 miles from this place to the edge of my constituency.
I would understand the motivation behind this motion if it looked as if the Government were going to be moving to some sort of draconian Trumpian suite of immigration policies. I would suggest from all that I hear and listen to that nothing could be further from the truth. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the most liberal of instincts and global of outlooks when it comes to immigration. One need only look to the time when he was Mayor of London to see a practical example of that, rather that its being a merely theoretical proposition.
I do not see the need or desirability for, and I am unconvinced by the deliverable workability of, this separate approach to immigration. I accept that the motion advocates an add-on rather than an instead-of—I get that, I understand that—but given that all the noises coming from Downing Street, both No. 10 and No. 11, are that we want to have a suite of immigration policies that is rapidly responsive to economic needs, whether that is in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England or North Dorset, I would suggest to SNP Members that at this stage in the proceedings there is nothing to worry about. There are concerns, of course. We will want to make sure that those policies are delivered on, but I do not think we need to worry about them just yet.
With the indulgence of SNP Members, whose motion this is, may I make a general point? In 2015, when many of us came into the House at the same time, I spoke on Second Reading of the Scotland Bill from almost this position on this Bench. The circumstances were similar. The SNP had done fantastically well in that general election and Members had a spring in their step. Those of us who are Unionists need to reflect on those results and calibrate a persuasive narrative to underpin, revitalise and reaffirm the benefits we see in the maintenance of the United Kingdom. To be a Unionist is not to be anti-Scottish. To be anti-separatist is not to have a grudge against the Scottish people. It is not to try to slam all of the doors to Scottish aspiration merely because we think that separation is wrong.
I am very pleased, and honoured in fact, to call very many Members on those Benches my friends. When I talk to constituents in North Dorset, they often ask what it is like with the SNP—

Angus MacNeil: Good guys!

Simon Hoare: I do not always say that, but what I do say is that they should not judge politics on what can often be those fractious discourses taking place on the Floor. We will have an argument here, and temperatures get a bit heated and blood pressure goes up, but outside in the Members’ Lobby, the Dining Room, the Tea Room or wherever we might happen to be, I will not say that everything is friendship and honeymoon music, but it is a lot better—[Interruption.] It’s not far off, the hon. Gentleman says. But it is a whole lot better than this Chamber often allows people to think.

Angus MacNeil: On sunshine and honeymoon music, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hoare: I do not know which the hon. Gentleman is offering me, and I am rather worried to give way, but in the interests of curiosity, which I know killed the cat, I will of course do so.

Angus MacNeil: Talking of sunshine and honeymoon music, I was listening to the hon. Gentleman’s passionate plea on the case for Unionism, but when he looks over the past century and sees the Republic of Ireland as the independent state that it is, does he not think that Scotland could do just as well or a little better if it could make its own decisions as Ireland can, both on immigration and on a raft of other issues, rather than having them being made by a Government from a party that we have not voted for since 1955?

Simon Hoare: As far as I am concerned, it is not about whether Scotland could or could not do the job. There is an advanced and deep political skillset, a developed civic society, academia and all the rest of it. [Interruption.] I am not going to be the first SNP Member for Dorset—don’t worry. It is a tempting offer, but I am going to have to decline. But in theory, could this be done? Of course. I am a Welshman. Could Wales go it alone? In theory, yes. But just because something is feasible does not necessarily make it desirable. Just because science can does not necessarily mean that science has to.
Deep within my DNA is a belief that the four quarters of the United Kingdom—through acts of history, politics, religion, shared interest, language, war and defensive values—are better, stronger and a more potent force for good in the world standing together. I do not say that to be offensive to Scottish Members, or to offend residents and fellow citizens of Scotland; it is just deep within my DNA.
I hope that the House will not find it too schmaltzy or amusing if I say that a number of Government Members often feel put off, or inhibited from, treading into the choppy and potentially dangerous waters of these debates and exchanges in this place, and we do so sometimes with a feeling of foreboding. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but actually—this may be the word that generates some titters, I do not know—as a Unionist, and having explained why I am a Unionist, I get personally upset when some SNP Members, for reasons best known to themselves, seek to portray my Unionism as being anti-Scottish. I would never portray their proud nationalism as being anti-English, anti-Welsh or anti-British. It is simply a different set of values that take us to a particular judgment.
It is possible to be vehemently pro something without being anti, per se, the alternative that is on offer. Whether it is migration, or the dust and sands that settle in this post-EU membership world, let us at least say to all our constituents—in the north of Scotland, the north of Dorset or wherever they may be—that we can engage in these debates in a vigorous, respectful and friendly way. Let us ensure that our motivations as Government Members are not portrayable as the narrow bigotry of some caricature of little England. That belies our motivations and our beliefs, and it has a negative impact on this place. If our constituents expect anything from us, particularly after the last three years, they are expecting  all of us to put our shoulders to the wheel to try to raise the quality, tone and temper of our political discourse as we engage in our passionate arguments.

Wendy Chamberlain: From the midst of the choppy waters, I have some life rafts. When the “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper” report was published by the Scottish Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) stated that, as a result of the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee, it was clear that the immigration needs of Scotland would be best met on a sectoral, rather than geographical, basis. The Scottish Affairs Committee was told that the UK can vary visas for different areas and sectors under existing laws. I therefore urge the Government to use these powers in consultation with the Scottish Government.
Agriculture is a key sector in my constituency of North East Fife that relies on a migrant workforce throughout the year, particularly at peak harvest times. The National Farmers Union estimates that 80,000 people are required to harvest crops across the UK each year, and a good proportion of this workforce is mobile, moving from location to location throughout the season. Borders within the UK can create barriers to work for such individuals. Our departure from the EU is already impacting on farmers’ ability to recruit staff, so we should be doing all we can to mitigate these difficulties rather than potentially exacerbating them. The need for visas for non-EEA nationals to crew fishing boats is acute in Cornwall, as it is in East Neuk and elsewhere in Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s migration report states:
“The current UK immigration system is complex and consists of a number of different routes and visas for work and study in an unclear system of tiers alongside a restrictive approach to family migration.”
I agree. That is why we proposed an amendment to the motion that focuses on the failings of the current system and the creation of the hostile environment that impacts on people across the UK, and the need to develop a system that treats everyone with dignity and respect.
Yesterday, I was approached by one of my constituents who had previously sought the support of my predecessor, Stephen Gethins. I thank Stephen for the support he gave to the family concerned. Valentyna Yakoleva is Ukrainian national who lives in my constituency with her son-in-law Andriya, her daughter, and their two children. She moved to the UK in 2010 at the age of 60 and has lived with her family in my constituency since then. After her travel visa expired, she should have been eligible for a family reunification visa, for she had no surviving spouse. She applied for the visa through a law firm based in Dundee, with the family making the assumption that it would be granted. She has spent this last decade raising her two granddaughters. Andriya, her son-in-law, told me that he would not have been able to work if his mother-in-law had not been looking after their daughters. Andriya sadly lost his job in 2015 but is now close to qualifying as a student teacher, thanks to Valentyna’s help.
But following errors in her initial application, and a failed appeal, Valentyna faces deportation back to Ukraine. She was held in the detention centre at Dungavel in South Lanarkshire following her arrest by the police in Fife, and was then held, away from her family, for two weeks before being released on bail following a  judicial review. She has been given two options: to leave the UK now, voluntarily, with the prospect of returning for visits only after a period of a year; or to be forcibly evicted from the UK and unable to return for five years.
I find this utterly appalling. Valentyna is nearly 70—the same age as my own mother, who likewise supported me with care for my children in their early years, and indeed still does. Valentyna has lived in this country for a decade. She has helped to raise her grandchildren, allowing her son-in-law to contribute to society and the economy, and to pay taxes. She now faces being sent to a country where she has no family, no property, and no prospect of employment. In addition, she has a number of health issues that she needs support with. Her son-in-law has said that Ukraine
“is no place to be sending her back to. She has no family there and her pension was frozen around seven years ago with no prospect of her ever having access to it. Valentyna is our family, she has brought up our children and has been part of this community for almost a decade. Sending her back will be an absolute breach of her human rights and devastating for all of us.”
I agree. This is a total breach of Valentyna’s human rights, causing untold anxiety and distress.
Cases like these are a black mark against our society. I ask the Minister to intervene in this case. Clearly, it is totally unacceptable to deport Valentyna, sending her somewhere where she has no family, has not lived for a decade, has no prospect of finding a job, and has her health put at risk. We should aim to be judged on how we treat the most vulnerable people in our society. We are failing Valentyna and many others like her.
As a newly elected MP, it is incredibly worrying to see the clockwork regularity of constituents contacting my office because they or their family face deportation because their visas have not been processed or their settled status has not been granted. Other Members have referred to that today. You do not have to be a Member of Parliament for long for it to be clear, if it was not already, that our immigration system is not working. It is not fair—

Peter Grant: I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member is saying. If we were to devise an immigration system that we thought would work for our respective communities, they would not be that different. But will she explain why she wants us to support the Lib Dem amendment and to wipe out the whole of the motion that the SNP has put forward? She is asking us to wipe out condemnation of the Government’s response to the Scottish Government White Paper. She is asking us to delete the bit that says that we welcome the support that we have had from across civic Scotland. She is even asking us to delete the part that says that the Home Secretary should
“engage positively with the Scottish Government…before introducing the Immigration Bill”.
If she wants the House to support the Lib Dem amendment, could she explain why she wants to delete all those parts from our motion instead of adding them to what she has put forward herself?

Wendy Chamberlain: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Before the hon. Lady comes back into the debate, can I just advise her gently that the amendment was not selected and therefore should not be referred to in any depth during the debate?

Wendy Chamberlain: I am aware that my amendment was not selected. All I will say is that, although there was support from civic bodies across Scotland, it was support for the debate to be started, rather than necessarily for the proposals.

Kevin Foster: If the hon. Lady wishes to supply my officials with the details of that case, I would be happy to look into it.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the Minister for that, and I will follow it up.
I am certain that every Member of this House has a Valentyna in their constituency. All Members must be aware of the scale of this problem. Yesterday was further proof, when Members on both sides of the House spoke on Second Reading of the Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill, and we heard again and again of the inhumane treatment of ordinary people just trying to go about their lives. Three weeks ago, the other place returned the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) to this House with a number of amendments, one of which required the Home Office to provide physical documentation to evidence EU nationals’ right to remain in the UK as part of the settled status scheme. Is it any wonder that those who come to live in, work in and contribute to this country have no confidence in the current processes?
We, as a collective, are the lawmakers. We could change this, but it will require political willpower on all sides. I hope we can all agree—and there has been an element of consensus in the debate—that when we are talking about immigration, the question should be: what do we need to do to create an immigration system in which every person has their dignity respected, a system that is compassionate and effective; that works for both ordinary people and UK employers; and that works for Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland?
I thank the SNP for using this opportunity to highlight the failings in our immigration system, because it is broken for the whole of the UK. Trying to fix the system on a geographical basis is, however, not the answer and only serves to further fracture the complex processes that currently exist. We need an immigration system that treats people with humanity and works for the whole of this country.

Stephen Flynn: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because it is an incredibly important one. Indeed, this is one of the defining issues of Scotland’s future, and I do not say that lightly. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) reflected upon one reason why this is such a huge issue for Scotland. For want of a better phrase, we face a demographic time bomb. We are fortunate that we have so many older folk who are living longer, but our working-age population is decreasing. There are two obvious solutions to that. The first solution is for people to have more babies—lots of them, and very soon. Obviously nobody can control that, but we do have control in relation to immigration.
We currently face a UK Government who have nothing but hostility towards migrants coming into this country. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said that we should wait and see, and that
“there is nothing to worry about.”
From my position, there is a lot to worry about. If he listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) or the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), he will know that the record of this Government when it comes to migration is utterly appalling. The manner in which people have been treated is disgusting. I am sorry if I am not willing to accept that things are going to get better just because the Conservatives say they will, but I simply do not believe that—the evidence says the complete opposite.
We have heard from No. 10 and No. 11 that the Government are seeking an Australian-style points system. But as my colleagues have pointed out this evening, the Australian system, however we look at it, allows for regional visas, and it does so to ensure that the system meets the needs of all the different areas of that country.

Christine Jardine: Is the hon. Member aware that the evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the last Parliament was that there is room within current UK legislation and the Home Office to differentiate visas for different parts of the country, so regional visas are actually available in this country?

Stephen Flynn: I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, but the UK Government should put in place processes that ensure that regionality exists. When I asked the Minister only yesterday whether he would look at that—Australia is discussed in glowing terms, and the Government fawns over it—his answer was no. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) asked a similar question in relation to Canada, exactly the same answer was forthcoming—no. Australia, as I have said, is the beacon that we need to look at, but when it comes to looking at the entire system in Australia we seem to be awfully selective about where we want to go.
The justification offered by Government Members, as we heard earlier, is the artificial, mythical concept of creating a border on this island but, as we have rightly heard from my colleagues, Ireland manages to get on just fine. Indeed, Conservative Members will be aware that their Government are working incredibly hard to make sure that there is frictionless movement on the island of Ireland, and rightly so. Why is it good enough for Ireland, but it cannot be achieved in this country? Why does there need to be a border on these isles? I respectfully suggest that the only people who are interested in borders in that regard are Government Members. What we have proposed, and what the Scottish Government are seeking to discuss, is a regional visa that is frictionless and allows Scotland to benefit. That is something of which we should all be incredibly supportive.
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to reflect on further concerns about what the Government are seeking to do. We heard from one Government Member that the threshold might no longer be £30,000 a year and that the salary limit might be reduced to £25,000. I do not know about Government Members, but £25,000 is still beyond the reach of many individuals living and working in Scotland, whether they work in the NHS, the care sector, our hospitality sector, our agriculture sector or, indeed, our fish-processing sector.
What is being proposed is simply not viable for Scotland’s needs, which is ultimately the crux of our debate. I would like to pick up the point about the hospitality sector. On Monday afternoon, I think, there was a debate in Westminster Hall about beer taxation and duty. There were more Government Members present for that debate than there are for this one. They chastised their Government for the fact that beer duty is too high. They wanted it to come down to keep local pubs open. There is consensus that reform is needed, but in Scotland, 11.5% of our hospitality workers are non-British nationals. There may well be a situation where we have cheaper pints, but ultimately there will nae be the folk there to serve them. In Scotland, the self-service mechanism might be something that goes down a treat but, in all seriousness, that is the reality of the situation that is facing us. The Press and Journal, the local newspaper in my part of the world, reported last year that there was a local facility—The Tippling House, a wonderful place—where 60% of staff were non-British nationals. Without knowing the detail, I respectfully suggest that few, if any, of them will reach the thresholds promoted by the Government.
What will become of such establishments? What will become of the hospitality sector in Scotland as a whole? Indeed, what will become of the public sector, including Aberdeen City Council? I am still a member of the council.

Christine Jardine: I am fascinated by the very good point that the hon. Member is making. In my constituency and in Edinburgh as a whole, 50% of the hospitality workforce comes from other parts of the European Union. As a member of the Scottish National party, he will have valued freedom of movement, as I did. Does he accept that many of us fear that imposing separate visas for different parts of the United Kingdom, rather than for a sector such as tourism, would limit freedom of movement within the UK, and would hamper us in encouraging people to come and work here?

Stephen Flynn: We have stumbled here upon language that has been a problem throughout this debate, and that is the notion that what we are proposing is a separate visa; the reality is that what we are proposing is additionality so that the needs of Scotland can be met.
It is on that point that I want to finish my contribution. The Scottish Government have put forward this proposal in good faith; we want to have a system that is to the benefit of Scotland and our collective futures. It is simply despicable that this Government dismissed that out of hand in the space of just 20 minutes, particularly when, on page 20 of the “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper” paper, at points 1, 2, 3 and 4, they can see that they would still be the final arbiter of any visa decision. We came forward in good faith and they rejected that, as indeed some of my colleagues have suggested. If they are unwilling to put in place a system that meets the needs of the people of Scotland, they should give those powers to the people who will.

Neale Hanvey: I shall begin my remarks this evening by paying tribute to the many people who have come to Scotland to build a life among us. Each plays an important and valued part in Scotland’s story and their contribution to the tapestry  of Scottish life makes Scotland a richer place to live, work and thrive in. I know that because, while I was not born in Scotland, Scotland made me welcome and it will forever be the place that I call home.
While I spent my early years in the north of Ireland immersed in the Unionist tradition, the years in Scotland that followed made it clear to me that there is no homogenous British identity: no such thing as one nation. We are very different countries with differing values, principles and politics.
In the early ’90s I, like so many in Scotland, left for work, moving to London to pursue professional opportunities not available to me at home. My return in 2009 was a revelation. The success of the devolved Government with their limited powers had begun to bring life to our distinct body politic, and this was inspiring. However, that optimism was quickly tempered in 2010 by the return of a Tory Government Scotland did not vote for, and it is my view that since that day this place has worked to stymie the advances Scotland has made and to pour scorn on our ability and our ambition.
The most recent example of that is the offhand contempt the UK Government have shown the people of Scotland in their response to the Scottish Government’s proposals for a Scottish visa scheme in a post-Brexit UK. It is simply not credible that any meaningful consideration of the proposal took place; we must wonder if the Government’s policy on Scotland is filed under B for bin. In this particular case they dismissed the views of the organisations that support the Scottish Government’s proposals, including business and rural communities, the Scottish TUC, FSB Scotland and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.
As noted in the motion, Scotland has distinct and different migration needs to sustain our population and help meet demographic challenges. The sole concession is alleged recognition of the need for “some regional variation” and claims that Scotland benefits from a separate shortage occupation list.
The first issue I have with that position is fundamental: Scotland is not a region, it is a country. The second point illustrates the complete lack of understanding of Scotland’s needs by the Government and, indeed, the Minister. Perhaps he should have a chat with his hon. Friends the Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). While the Government continue to promote their reductionist and hostile environment, Scotland wants to encourage and welcome people to build their life with us, among us, as one of us; if the Government can add “new Scot” to their shortage list, that would be a start.
Turning to the local impact in my constituency, Innovate Foods in Dysart is a company that manufactures food for restaurants, retail and catering wholesalers. It employs 65 people, almost half of whom were born overseas. Some of the workers have been with Innovate for nearly 20 years, and the company has translated instructions and recipes into Polish, with some Scottish staff learning Polish to speak to their colleagues in the workforce. The director, Tony Dumbreck, told me that having a large migrant workforce has been a positive experience, remarking that they are generally well educated, they have brought skills that are in demand and they work very hard. He wants them to have as much stability and security as possible and considers them as part of the Innovate  family. That attitude is emblematic of the warm, inclusive attitude of the people and the communities I serve to those who choose to make Scotland their home. Since Brexit, he has lost some staff as a result of the toxic hostile environment rhetoric. However, that is not his only concern. He told me:
“Even with the reduced earnings threshold of £25,600, that will be a constraint to try to employ production workers. We perceive that fewer people will be coming here.”
Of course, that is not a surprise. Although my immediate predecessor made no reference to migration in this place in her two years as an MP, save to criticise fellow Scottish MPs standing up for Scotland, her predecessor, Roger Mullin, did give this matter appropriate focus both here and at home. In a debate in this place in 2017, Mr Mullin stated:
“Scotland has different productivity needs, one of which relates to our attitude towards immigration. I would argue that we need more immigration, of the right type.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2017; Vol. 622, c. 199.]
Locally, Roger convened meetings with groups of constituents to listen to and support them in their anxieties about a post-Brexit Scotland. He also worked with Fife Migrants Forum, based in Kirkcaldy, to better understand the challenges of the communities it serves.
Under current UK immigration rules, highly talented workers are subject to the costly and bureaucratic tier 1 exceptional talent visa process. The Migration Advisory Committee has said that this system “does not work well” and found that only 600 main applicants had been admitted, despite a cap of 2,000 visas. The UK Government have announced that a new, global talent visa will be launched on 20 February 2020 as part of a post-Brexit immigration system, but many believe that with it being open to highly talented individuals only, it will still fail to address chronic skills shortages. Of course visas serve an important function, but when they set the bar at an unrealistic or unnecessarily high level, they become an impediment to growth and ambition. Recognising that there are differing needs across the nations and regions of the UK while applying a one-size-fits-all is as senseless as it is reckless.
Inward migration is undeniably important, but Scotland also faces a retention challenge. The process to ensure that applications for settled status are completed before the 30 June cut-off is sadly farcical. Yesterday, representatives from Fife Migrants Forum attended the EU settled status conference here in London in the hope that it would get answers to vital questions. On 31 March, its funding runs out and, having already suffered due to impediments placed on it by the Home Office, it has only been able to process about 700 of the expected 3,000 applications from some of the most vulnerable people across Fife. Without appropriate funding, some of those constituents may fall through the cracks if the knife falls in six weeks’ time. They are particularly concerned about those members of our community who may now be in care homes. Who will fund them? Will they be removed? These are outrageous suggestions, but it is the reality of UK Government policy. It also applies to students, employees, older people and those in the rural parts of my constituency. Yesterday they were told that “everything is in the hands of the politicians”. Well it certainly is not in the hands of the politicians they elect.
The Government’s continued hostile, unhelpful and toxic environment, which weaponises the word “migrant”, is anathema to me and many in Scotland. We do not call them migrants in such a pejorative way. To us, they are friends, neighbours, partners and workmates. When we ask where you are from, it is with warm and genuine interest rather than suspicion and mistrust.
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), erroneously claimed that the independent Migration Advisory Committee has consistently recommended against regional differences in salary thresholds for skilled worker visas, but its most recent report to the Government on a points-based system and salary thresholds did recommend that the Government pilot a separate visa for remote areas of the UK, including and involving all the devolved Administrations. The current buzz line in the Government is “oven-ready”. Well, they know that Scotland has an oven-ready scheme—why not try it?

Kirsten Oswald: After listening to the contributions from Government Members, I have to say that it is a great pity that the UK Government are taking such a careless approach to the Scottish Government’s proposals for a tailored migration system for Scotland. As well as disregarding the need that lies behind the very sensible visa proposals that the Scottish Government have put forward, they are also disregarding the views of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, among many others.
That matters, because the UK Government are messing with the future of our country when they refuse to consider that all those people who are telling them that their system does not work for Scotland might be right. However, they still continue with their inward-looking Brexit Britain, the ever-more hostile environment and their approach of pulling up the drawbridge. That is not the best way for Scotland and it is no wonder that we see a better future as an open, outward-looking, independent country, but they are determined to plough on down that road, wilfully disregarding the thoughtful and sensible visa proposals that the Scottish Government have put forward to help to deliver the sustainable future that we need in Scotland.
The thing is that we need migration. Scotland is not full. We need people to come and live in Scotland and we want them to come. They are welcome. We need to make sure that we can sustain and grow our population levels, and even if the UK Government do not, we realise how crucial that is to our future.
In Scotland, all our population growth for the next 25 years is projected to come from migration, so it is really beyond unhelpful that the UK Government are rowing back on commitments such as the ones made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that when it came to immigration, it would be for the people of Scotland to decide. It is a different story now, so it must have been convenient then for him to say that Nicola Sturgeon’s approach was the right one—as it is—but we are now back to the same old, same old, with the UK Government just expecting us to get on with it and hang with the consequences for Scotland.

John Lamont: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kirsten Oswald: I do not have much time, so I am sorry—I will not.
The consequences for Scotland are serious. Our population growth is slowing, our birth rate is falling and we are ageing as a population. It is a mystery to me, though perhaps not a surprise, why the UK Government seem so intent on avoiding any engagement with the Scottish Government on the Scottish visa, despite the serious and constructive nature of the proposals that have been put forward for discussion.
I live in one of the most diverse places in Scotland, and it is home to people who have come from all over the world. It is a brilliant thing—it makes my community better. The people who have migrated to Scotland recently and over the decades have made Scotland better and richer for their presence. People have come to work in the NHS, in hospitality, in education and in public services—I could go on—but as things stand, the UK Government will be imposing harm on our communities now that will only be greater in the future if they do not take our approach into account.
We need this power in Scotland for population and economic reasons, but it is about much more than that. We benefit so much from the rich diversity that people coming to Scotland bring with them. In Scotland, the people who want to live, work and raise their families as part of our communities are very welcome, and they have enriched our society. They do that now and they have done that in the past by coming to live in Scotland, and I am thankful for that. Our country is home to people with histories in all kinds of other places and that makes us better now, and it will make us better in the future.
I will finish by reflecting on the words of our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, in her speech at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 2016. She said:
“Whether we have lived here for generations or are new Scots, from Europe, India, Pakistan, Africa and countries across the globe, we are all of this, and more. We are so much stronger for the diversity that shapes us. We are one Scotland and we are simply home to all those who choose to live here.”
Migration is good for Scotland. We want migration. Scotland is open and we wish to remain so. We need to be able to make the decisions that allow us to do the right thing for our country.

Philippa Whitford: I declare an interest that many Members will know of: my husband, Hans, is German and has worked as a GP in Scotland for over 30 years, looking after Scottish people when they are ill, as indeed have many migrants from all sorts of places—not just Europe but across the world. I am talking about our colleagues, our friends, our neighbours, and I follow my colleagues in celebrating them.
There has been a failure to recognise the sheer scale of the challenge Scotland faces. Scotland is one third of the UK landmass. It is enormous. I know on the weather map it looks small, but it is not; it is actually huge. The James Hutton Institute points out that half of that is defined as sparsely populated, and those areas could lose a quarter of their population by the mid ’40s unless  action is taken. Because of freedom of movement, Scotland had a growing population for a number of years, but Scottish net migration fell across the EU referendum from 31,500 in 2015 to 21,000 in 2017. That is a fall of a third. That was the impact of Brexit, even though we had not left.
Scotland has faced forced out-migration over centuries, right back to the clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries, when people were forcibly put on ships and sent elsewhere in the world. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out, we did not just lose the individuals who left; we lost their children and grandchildren; we lost generations of people. As he also mentioned, in 2017-18 there were over 7,500 more deaths than births, with 2018 seeing the second lowest ever number of registered births. Scotland’s natural growth is falling, and all our population growth over the next quarter century is expected to come from immigration. Without it, we face a falling working-age population by the mid-2030s that will struggle to support our ageing population.
The hon. Member highlighted this demographic time bomb, but I did not hear him offer a solution. Some 14 local authorities in Scotland already have a falling population, and that includes my constituency in the south-west of Scotland. In remote and rural areas, it becomes a worsening spiral. We are left with older communities, so young people go on leaving, which means there are fewer children. The population becomes smaller and ages rapidly. These are often stunningly beautiful parts of Scotland to which people from elsewhere in the UK and Scotland retire. Now, they are very welcome, but unfortunately that actually adds to the problem of ageing. We can end up with communities that simply do not have enough young people within them to provide the health and social care, or even just the support that they need.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that Scotland needed to up its GDP growth—that was the issue—but the Fraser of Allander Institute highlighted that GDP growth rates were directly linked to population growth rates. It is predicted that the UK’s population will grow by over 7% in the coming years but that Scotland’s will only grow by 1%. Indeed, if action is not taken, it may start to fall. The Migration Advisory Committee pointed out that EU citizens contributed £2,300 more in tax than natives, because they come here after someone else has paid for their education and training. Isn’t it a pity that that report was requested in 2017, and not in 2015, before the EU referendum, of which getting immigration down was made a central plank?
Our problem is that we need young people; we need young migrants to come into Scotland. I am talking about people of working age, who are low users of welfare, low users of the NHS and not collectors of pensions. We need to attract them, not with a job they can do for a few years, but to settle. That is what points-based systems are about—giving someone early on in the process the right to settle somewhere, make their life there and have a family there—and that is what Scotland requires.
These people bring to our communities the diversity, energy and vitality that can help us to retain our own young people. At present UK visas are based on earnings, so younger people earn less—even on the minimum  wage—which means that they will not qualify for visas. Salaries are often much lower in rural areas, so they cannot attract migrants because of the salary thresholds. That hits key sectors in which Scotland is highly represented, such as tourism, food and drink, agriculture and fishing. I agree that is great to know that the number of seasonal workers will increase from a paltry 2,500 to 10,000, but before the earlier cut, the UK had 64,000. As the Member for West Aberdeenshire admitted, 70,000 might be a more realistic number, but when on earth will we reach that if the 10,000 is only a proposal?
As for fishing, many boats are tied up on the west coast of Scotland because of a lack of crew. That highlights the need for non-EEA visas, particularly for Filipino fishermen who come here. They do not bring families and they are not intending to settle, but they help to provide the training that can attract local young people to the industry. I have written to the Secretary of State in the past, I have written to Immigration Ministers, and the possibility of a seafarers’ visa has been discussed in the House. However, each time that possibility is raised, we are told that there cannot be any sectoral visas. So I can tell those who have said, “Oh, let us have sectoral visas” that this Government have already refused to allow them.
There has been a drop of a quarter in the number of European doctors coming to the UK since the Brexit referendum, a 90% drop in the number of European nurses, and a one-third increase in the number of European nurses leaving. In particular, young medical trainees cannot come here. Those who wish to become—like me—a surgeon are committing themselves to training that will last between 10 and 14 years. They can move when they are untrained and they can move when they are consultants, but they cannot afford to be kicked out in the middle, and they therefore require long-term security. According to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, 80% of UK-trained nurses are over 50, while 72% of EU trained staff are under 40.
The problem is that the Government are judging on the basis of earnings. They are judging on the basis of money rather than worth. They are not judging on the basis of the contribution that people make to the system and the wellbeing of the community. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) admitted that we need a range of skills. As a surgeon, I can tell the House that I need an anaesthetist, but I also need an orderly, and I need someone who cleans the theatre. We need everyone, so there is no sense in this narrative of excluding unskilled people, or allowing them to come for no more than a year. Who is going to invest in their training?

David Duguid: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Philippa Whitford: No, there is no time.
The UK Government said they wanted a system that would work for all parts of the UK, but when the Scottish Government came forward with their proposal, they refused it without even reading it.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) highlighted shortages in other parts of the UK, including the north of England. In October, the Home Secretary said that the Government wanted to add extra points to a points-based system to attract people to the north of England and coastal areas, so why have they refused to  consider a very similar system for Scotland? At UK level there is simply no visa that is aimed at settlement—at providing security at an early stage, so that people will come and make their homes and their lives here. A points- based system would be based on migrant characteristics, not just on someone’s having a job. Canada and Australia are often cited, but the provincial nominee programme allows the province to set the criteria and assess the applicants. If an application is successful, it is the central Government who actually issue the visa.
This is a very modest request. It is supported by civic Scotland, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Federation of Small Businesses. Our proposed system is based on residence, as the Scottish tax code already is. However, this modest proposal simply was not considered. Members say that they have read it, but they read it after it was refused.
Let me just gently say that it is not possible to keep a relationship or marriage together by force. It must be done through respect, and through recognition and consideration of someone’s needs. Failure to do that simply ends in divorce. Immigration is existential for Scotland, and the failure to recognise that means that people in Scotland, and businesses in Scotland, will see that there is only one way for us to get the policies that we need.

Kevin Foster: It is a pleasure to wind up this important debate, and I would like to thank the SNP for this opportunity to highlight the needs and challenges faced not only by Scotland but across our United Kingdom. In starting, it is right for me to reflect on the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), and to congratulate her on her passionate explanation of what drove her into politics. I know that she will be a strong representative of her community.
As Members on the Scottish National party Benches will know, I am always keen to discuss a range of issues with all 59 of Scotland’s Members of Parliament here in this Chamber. I understand that remote areas and island communities face demographic pressures that have eroded the local workforce, leaving opportunities unfilled and threatening the stability of the rural economy. However, it has to be said that that has happened with freedom of movement in place. We need these issues to be addressed across our Union, not just by individual parts of our Union, yet the Scottish Government’s policy paper proposes measures that go against the recommendations of the independent and impartial Migration Advisory Committee. The MAC has consistently advised against applying different immigration arrangements to different areas of the UK. That cannot be stressed enough. As such, we have no plans to devolve immigration and create invisible borders within our United Kingdom—in effect, creating an economic version of Hadrian’s Wall or Offa’s Dyke. This Government are clear that our points-based immigration system will serve the needs of the whole United Kingdom, including Scotland. It goes without saying that any national differences in the rules or visa offers around the UK would result in an overly complex system at a time when we are trying to streamline and simplify the process, and would create additional burdens for businesses, employers and migrants.
I appreciate the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and of the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). We might disagree on aspects of migration policy, including where we would draw the line, but I think we can agree that implementing a system based on whether someone’s job was in Gretna or Gateshead would present challenges—[Interruption.] I hear chuckling from the Benches opposite, but there are many workers whose jobs are necessarily based across our United Kingdom. Members of Parliament are a good example. I am in Whitehall and the Palace of Westminster during the week, but Torbay is also my main place of work. I know that many Opposition Members are in a similar position. My point is that there are millions of workers whose work regularly requires them to move between locations, and we do not wish to create a border for them within our United Kingdom.
It is unrealistic and undesirable to create a visa that binds a person to one part of the United Kingdom, opening the door to uncertain enforcement and complex bureaucracy, and creating routes to avoid and abuse the provisions by those seeking to undermine other areas of immigration policy. That is why we do not believe that this is the appropriate process to adopt. However, that does not mean that we do not want to hear what people have to say about our policies. One of the first suggestions from the Scottish National party in this debate was a graduate route for those who have been here on a tier 4 visa studying a course. Members may be interested to note that university-sponsored applications have increased by 14% over the last year to over 220,000, which is the highest ever level.

Philippa Whitford: rose—

Neil Gray: rose—

Kevin Foster: I am afraid I will have to make progress, due to the time and the length of the debate. I also noticed that not many interventions were being taken on the Benches opposite.
Next year, we will be opening the graduate route to allow those who have been here at any skill level to work for two years after completing their studies. Again, we are showing that we are listening, and we are making a difference. I listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) about the fishing industry, and I know that this is an important issue for Members on the SNP Benches. We will look carefully at the recommendation of an immigration pilot for remote communities, and how that could potentially assist in this area. I would say, however, that I have never considered the vibrant cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh remote, and I do not think anyone else would.
Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out, we have already taken the decision to increase the seasonal agricultural workers pilot to 10,000—again following feedback about the needs of the Scottish economy. So there are many areas where we are taking on board the views that have been expressed. The best example is where I was on the day the Scottish Government produced their plans—at Glasgow University, talking specifically about the changes to tier 1 to create an uncapped global talent route that will allow universities  to put together research teams based not on passports, but on the skills they need to deliver accredited projects. I heard the excitement when they saw the opportunity for Scottish interests and Scottish stakeholders to be at the heart of designing the UK’s immigration policy in a way that assists them. Similarly, we are looking further at how we can work through the tier 4 system with those organisations, particularly universities with a high compliance rate, to make sure it works even better for them.
The key is ensuring that talent across the world sees the great potential of Scotland, as the UK Government do, and that means creating an attractive environment for investment and for working there. The Scottish Government, of course, have power over vast swathes of public life in Scotland—education, healthcare, infrastructure and taxation—and they perhaps may wish to question the impact, in terms of welcoming people, of making Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom with their policy decisions. The Scottish Government have control of all the necessary levers to encourage investment, to build an educated and skilled workforce, and to secure Scotland’s economic future. With all those tools available, why do they still seek to stoke division? It is because separatism, not Scotland’s future, is their first priority. SNP Members should ask themselves whether the failings in education that Nicola Sturgeon has presided over have anything to do with Scottish companies seeking talent from elsewhere, or whether any number of overseas medical professionals will deal with the issues in the Scottish health service. This Government will create an in-response-to-demand NHS visa system that makes it easy to recruit health workers, but again, that will not necessarily tackle the core issues of the failure of domestic policy set by the Scottish National party.
As pointed out in this debate, immigration has brought a vast wealth of experience, expertise and diversity to the United Kingdom, and we have heard some great examples in this debate of where that has taken place, but that cannot be used as a stopgap or to make up for the failings of nationalist policies elsewhere. Above all, those who choose to come and make their lives in the United Kingdom should be welcomed across all four nations, not used to stoke constitutional grievances or in an attempt to set up a border at Berwick.
The United Kingdom Government have looked at the proposals, which talk of settlement. Is that settlement purely in Scotland or elsewhere? For us, the key is to look at the themes, the needs and the requirements, rather than to just look at how we can break up the United Kingdom. I am clear that there will be challenges to address across our Union, but the idea that we should do that based on the nations of the United Kingdom misses the point. The idea, for example, that Torbay’s economy is instantly comparable to London’s because it happens to be in England, or that the appropriate solution for the Scottish highlands would be to have the same visa as in Edinburgh, misses some of the key ways our economy works. Again, I am conscious that this is something that was decided more by a Government who set up a review to look for their destination of separation, rather than a genuine look at how life patterns work across our United Kingdom.
We are clear that we will listen to feedback. We have written back to the Scottish Government and we will listen to feedback from stakeholders and the Scottish  Government about how a future migration system can work. We will look at what their policies would deliver and whether they would deliver success across our United Kingdom. That will be the focus of our policies and plans for taking this forward and making ourselves a nation that prioritises and embraces a bright, optimistic future for Scotland, a place whose natural beauty is second to none. But we will also reject the separatist view of a grievance-based culture of constitutional argument, as I know the House will tonight.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 322.
Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6))

Local Government

That the draft Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 28 October 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6))

Criminal Law

That the Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 36), dated 17 January 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)

Business of the House

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. —(Mike Freer.)

Petition - Refugee family reunion

Patrick Grady: Glasgow University’s Student Action for Refugees recently hosted the Museum Without A Home exhibition, displaying everyday objects in solidarity with migrants and refugees around the world. At the same time, it collected more than 600 signatures for the Families Together petition, calling for refugee children to have the right to be reunited with their parents in their home. A smaller number have signed the petition that I am now presenting in the House of Commons style, which makes the same demand.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Glasgow North,
Declares that under current family reunion rules adult refugees can only sponsor their partners and children under 18 years old to join them in the UK; further that child refugees in the UK have no family reunion rights so they can’t bring their parents to join them; further that the lack of opportunities for refugees to reunite with family members forces people to turn to smugglers and exacerbates the humanitarian crises in Southern Europe; and further that, for refugees already living safely in the UK, the enforced separation from their families and constant anxiety about their wellbeing can be devastating, preventing them from rebuilding their lives and undermining their successful integration into their new communities. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to expand the criteria of who qualifies as a family member for the purposes of refugee family reunion, including by allowing adult refugees in the UK to sponsor their adult children, their siblings that are under the age of 25, and their parents; further to give unaccompanied refugee children in the UK the right to sponsor their parents and siblings that are under the age of 25 to join them under the refugee family reunion rules; and further to reintroduce legal aid for refugee family reunion cases.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002555]

Media Diversity

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Freer.)

Marsha de Cordova: I am pleased to have secured this important debate. The media is a fundamental part of the way that we see and understand the world. According to Ofcom, 79% of adults get their news information from broadcasters and 40% from newspapers, but, while white adults are using TV, radio and newspapers, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and young people are turning away from them. Instead, they are using the internet, social media and alternative media sources. That is because traditional media sources are failing to represent the society on which they report. Today, I will talk about how there continues to be a systemic lack of race, class, disability, LGBT plus and gender diversity across the media, but particularly in broadcast and newspaper journalism.
Last week, the BBC misidentified me as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), Britain’s first black female Minister, while I was making a speech in this House. The error was compounded by the report on the issue in the Evening Standard, which confused a picture of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) with me. The Evening Standard had used photos from Getty Images which had wrongly captioned me as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham—you quite literally could not make this up. In the space of a few days, three separate news outlets, Getty Images, the BBC and the Evening Standard, had confused me with another female black MP. This was not the first time: it has happened time and again to me and my other colleagues of colour in Parliament. As journalist Gary Younge put it:
“The message is clear. It really doesn’t matter how prominent, accomplished, integrated, qualified or celebrated non-white people become to a significant number of others, including their peers. They will always just be another black person: interchangeable.”
In the eyes of much of the media, it is impossible for me to have my own identity outside of being a black woman. In that sense, I am invisible to them. This is one of the many incidents that exposes a problem within our media—a problem that exists because the workforce who make up our media, the journalists, producers, commentators, editors and presenters, do not reflect modern British society. Jobs across the sector continue to be inaccessible to those without privilege or resources. Just 7% of the UK is privately educated, and roughly 1% graduate from Oxford and Cambridge, but according to the Sutton Trust, 43% of the top figures in news media are privately educated and 36% went to Oxford. We should never forget that Oxbridge makes more offers to one school, Eton, than to all the children on free school meals. It is almost as though there is a direct pipeline from Eton, Harrow and Westminster to Oxbridge and to the heart of our media.
It simply is not getting any better. Social mobility in the United Kingdom is low and not improving.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady, who is a doughty campaigner on many subjects in this House. I wish her well on this one. Does she agree that there should be a natural spread of disability, gender, age, colour, class and creed in the  media and the paid rates for this diversity must equate to fitness of purpose for the job and not what sex a presenter or reporter is? The way to do that is better enforcement of pay structures in both the public and private sectors.

Marsha de Cordova: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the pay gaps and problems in those structures.
As I said, things are simply not getting better, and according to the Sutton Trust elite voices continue to dominate our media, as they have since the 1950s. In fact, according to the Government’s own figures, journalists are second only to doctors as the most exclusive profession in Britain, with the majority of journalists coming from middle-class backgrounds.
The lack of working-class representation in our media also means a lack of black, Asian and other minority ethnic group representation. A study by City University and the Sutton Trust shows that 94% of journalists are white and only 0.2% of journalists are black. In a recent report, Ofcom criticised this “woeful” lack of diversity in broadcast television. And I can understand why. There is not a single high-profile British news programme or current affairs series headed by a non-white person. Growing up, I was used to seeing Trevor McDonald and Moira Stuart on my screen. As I grew older I expected to see more people of colour reading the news or providing political commentary, but progress seems to have ground to a halt. The National Council for the Training of Journalists found that the proportion of black broadcast journalists has remained unchanged at 1% since 2002. Figures from Ofcom show that only 10% of those in leadership roles in news and current affairs at the BBC are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background and that only 7% of ITV and 11% of Sky employees working in journalism are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background.
There are 8 million black and ethnic minority people in this country and 14 million disabled people, but neither group is given a proper voice in our media. The United Nations convention on the rights of disabled people is clear that all disabled people should have the right to
“effectively and fully participate in…public life on an equal basis with others”,
and that includes the media. The failure to recruit disabled journalists has done little to change that. It is time that we saw blind and partially sighted people like me and disabled people anchoring the news on TV and radio and as political commentators. It is time that we read more columns, op-eds and analysis by wheelchair users. And it is time for all broadcasters to recognise their responsibilities by ensuring that disabled people are recognised in our media.
We cannot forget that diversity in our media means off-screen diversity as well as on-screen diversity. Under a third of TV occupations are held by women, and less than a fifth are from a working-class background. From 2013 to 2016, just 2.2% of British TV episodes were made by ethnic minority directors. That means that entire series of dramas, comedies, sketch shows, reality TV shows, and their story arcs, have been created without any black, Asian or minority ethnic group input. It is time that Ofcom introduced a regulatory mechanism to  monitor the make-up of all workforces, on-screen and off-screen. We must not be afraid to say that, like many other areas and sectors of society, our media are a bit pale, a bit male and a bit stale.
I recognise all the important work done by broadcasters and news organisations across the media, but we must ask why there has been so little improvement. Some key factors are making this systemic lack of diversity worse. First, unpaid internships continue to be a key way in which people enter journalism. Recent figures reveal that more than 80% of new entrants to journalism do internships that are unpaid. Working for free is something that can only be done by a select few—that is, by people who live in urban centres and who are supported by their families. An element of the old boys’ club still reigns strong in the media; in some instances, it seems to be a case of not what you know, but who you know. Any Government who are committed to a real living wage and believe that everybody should have an equal chance to work should act to abolish unpaid internships. Secondly, the decimation of local news sources has had a negative impact on aspiring journalists from outside the urban centres, because it has removed the pipeline from local and regional up towards national press and broadcasting.
When the Minister responds, will he tell me whether he agrees that there is a systemic problem with diversity in the media? What are the Government doing to ensure that they fulfil the commitments set out in the industrial strategy, and deliver a media sector that is open to all talented people, irrespective of their race, disability, class or gender? Will he call on all major media corporations to report on all aspects of the diversity of their workforce, including their socioeconomic make-up, and will he legislate to ensure that these organisations publish their pay gap data for gender, disability and ethnicity? Will he introduce a regulatory requirement for organisations to publish the data on their black, Asian and minority ethnic, disability and LGBT workforce from senior executive level to entry level? And will he confirm that the rumours circulating that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be dissolved are not true?
As I come to the end of my speech, I would like to put on record my recognition of the important work done by organisations, such as Channel 4, to increase socioeconomic and regional diversity in their workforces. I commend it for its target to have 12% disabled staff across the organisation by 2023. But we know that there is an unacceptable divide between media and society, as was articulated well by Jon Snow from Channel 4. In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, he lamented the media’s failure to recognise what was happening, saying:
“in an increasingly fractured Britain, we in the media”
have
“little awareness, contact, or connection with those not of the elite.”
A media dominated by the elite means that broadcasters, newspapers and our stories do not reflect the rich diversity of our society. For instance, with so few Muslim journalists—0.2%—it is no coincidence that over a third of newspaper articles “misrepresented or made generalisations” about the Muslim community, according to the Muslim Council of Britain. When disabled staff make up just 5.5% of off-screen staff at major broadcasters, it is no wonder that they are not represented on our TV screens.
Without a diverse workforce made up of every part of our society—without reporters with an understanding of, say, Bristol and Birmingham, and without executives from Oxton as well as Oxbridge—the media will always fail to speak for us all. It is time for real action and time for real change so that our media is by us, for us and about us.

Nigel Adams: I am delighted to respond to this debate and really grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for securing it. Before I came here this afternoon, my son said to say hello as she is his local MP, so he is delighted that we are having this debate.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Adams: Indeed. It is a great surprise to be giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Jim Shannon: Did the Minister’s son vote for the hon. Lady?

Eleanor Laing: Order. I think that is an inadmissible question.

Nigel Adams: I love him dearly, but I can confirm that he did not vote for the Conservative party at the general election. But that is a matter for his own conscience—and at some point his own bank balance, no doubt.
Unfortunately, the experience of the hon. Lady is not the first of its kind and is unlikely to be the last. There have been a number of other high-profile examples, including recently when the basketball player Kobe Bryant was mistaken for LeBron James during a BBC news report, and the musician Stormzy has previously been mistaken for the former Manchester United player Romelu Lukaku. In addition to the other negative experiences that she has raised, these examples all point to a wider issue directly linked to, as she rightly points out, a lack of diversity in our media.
The media play a vital role in British society and therefore have an important responsibility to reflect the reality of modern Britain. This can only be possible with a representative and diverse workforce. It is the Government’s view that everyone, regardless of their background, should have the same opportunity to be successful and to go as far as their talents and hard work take them, including in the media and the wider creative industries. This Government are committed to working together with the industry to achieve this and to support greater diversity.
As one of our most cherished institutions, the BBC has an important role to play in the diversity debate, and we expect it to lead the way. In 2016, the Government embedded diversity in the BBC’s new public purposes to make sure that it delivers for everyone in the UK. That gave the BBC a general duty to make sure that it considered diversity in the programmes and shows it makes and in the way that it is organised and run. This Government’s position is clear: the BBC should be leading the way in both on-screen and off-screen diversity in equal measure.

Alex Chalk: I am sure that the BBC itself would accept that it needs to go further. In 2017, its BAME representation was 14.8% across the workforce. There is more to do, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is endeavouring to improve the situation?

Nigel Adams: I believe that the BBC is incredibly conscious of this. I think the numbers may have crept up a little bit, but there is still an awful lot more to do.
The BBC has conducted reviews on improving its diversity, and it is continuing to implement those findings. It has announced that it will be appointing two advisers to every senior leader group across the business to increase BAME representation at senior levels. The Government expect the BBC to make significant progress in delivering against those challenges, including on the proportion of women and BAME people represented in its leadership.

Marsha de Cordova: I appreciate that the BBC is trying and aspiring to do better, but does the Minister agree that it needs to look at not only race and gender but disability?

Nigel Adams: I do, and I am about to come on to the very valid points that the hon. Lady made.
As of 2019, the proportion of women in the BBC was 47%, and the proportion of BAME people was 15%. That is better than the national labour population in general, but it falls behind other public service broadcasters. The proportion of women at Channel 4, for example, is 57%, and the proportion of BAME people is 19%.
As Members will be aware, the BBC charter establishes Ofcom as the independent regulator for the BBC. Ofcom must therefore continue to hold the BBC to account on its diversity requirements. Ofcom’s review of BBC representation and portrayal on TV in 2018 set challenges for the BBC, and the Government expect the BBC to keep working towards being a more diverse and representative organisation and broadcaster.
Ofcom’s responsibility to hold the BBC to account on its diversity requirements is part of its wider role to monitor the diversity of the UK television sector as a whole. Ofcom has a duty to promote equality of opportunity in relation to employment in the broadcasting sector and has powers to ask broadcasters to provide information about their equal opportunities policies and the make-up of their workforce. Ofcom’s findings are published in its annual report on diversity and equal opportunities in television. In its latest report, it notes that 13% of the UK television industry identifies as BAME, which is just above the average of the UK labour market. The number of women—45%—is only just below the average of the UK labour market. It is with disability that Ofcom identifies a real issue, with 6% of the UK television industry reporting as disabled, which falls well below the 18% of the UK labour market. Clearly, more needs to be done in that regard.
A big issue is the availability of data on the diverse make-up of the media industry. Ofcom says that, while gaps in the data are decreasing, the number who report as “undisclosed” is increasing, and therein lies the issue. It is important that, in acknowledging that more could be done to support the industry, we understand that part of that is ensuring we have the available data to  support the case for change and to measure success when it comes. Without doubt, UK television should reflect modern Britain, both on and off the screen, and the Government are supportive of Ofcom’s work to drive improvements in that area.
The hon. Lady referred to social mobility, which remains a problem at many media organisations. For example, it was reported last year that only 9% of staff at Channel 4 identified as coming from a working-class background. Even at the BBC, which has the highest number of staff from lower social classes, 61% of staff identify as coming from a higher social class. However, I would like to applaud Channel 4 for taking this problem seriously and acknowledging that it wants to be a place where the doors are open to everyone. This is a difficult problem to tackle. Those from higher social classes have the capital to afford to take low-paid or unpaid internships, to get a foot in the door.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be dissolved. On my behalf and that of the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), I very much hope that that is not the case, but we will have to wait until Thursday.

Marsha de Cordova: I thank the Minister for giving way again, and I am pleased to hear that the Department will be staying intact; I hope he will remain a part of it. When we talk about diversity and representation in media outlets—be it the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5 or ITV—it is important to acknowledge that certain roles, such as those in finance or HR, are separate from those on-screen or as part of the off-screen editorial and production side of things. Does he agree that there needs to be proper data gathering about those roles, as well as the other aspects of the industry?

Nigel Adams: I agree—that is the challenge in data collection, which should be more transparent. The hon. Lady makes a very good point.
In the time that is left, I will make some progress. The situation differs from that of print media. Newspapers tell the stories that reflect modern Britain. As a result, it is important that those working in print media are representative of the diversity of our country. The Government are committed to a free and independent press, and we do not interfere with what the press can and cannot publish. Of course, editors have responsibilities to the public, and should be held to account if they infringe individuals’ rights.
The press is subject to independent self-regulation. Anyone who is concerned about something published by a newspaper can make a complaint, either to a self-regulatory body, or to the publisher directly. As we said in the Government’s response to the Cairncross review, public interest news and journalism should reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom. Improving the diversity of newsrooms could help newspapers appeal to under-represented audiences. Appealing to under-represented audiences could also have a positive impact on sustainability. Many newspapers are doing good work in this area, with a number of national newspapers running diversity schemes.
The Government do not wish to interfere in any way with editorial freedoms, operations or decision making in newspapers, but we encourage the press to do more  to increase diversity in journalism. The Government are committed to ensuring that equality and diversity are a key feature of all our interactions with industry. The work that is being done on improving the diversity of the print and broadcast media is part of the wider steps being taken within the creative industries. I am happy to say that much is being done in the creative industries to reflect our diverse country. Only last week I had the pleasure of attending the launch of Ukie’s “Raise the Game” diversity pledge with five founding partners, including heavy hitters Microsoft Xbox and Jagex, which aim to redress the balance of the games workforce which is currently 70% male and 12% privately educated—almost double the national average. Initiatives such as these and the “Creative Pioneers” of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising or Penguin Random House’s “WriteNow” programme, which has engaged 450 writers across nine regional workshops, provide positive first steps across sectors traditionally seen as a closed shop.
The Government recognise that much more can be done to bring about widespread and long-lasting change. Through the Creative Industries Council, we are working with industry to show strong leadership in this area.   The recently announced diversity charter commits the creative sector to improving the quality of its diversity data as well as its recruitment practices, development, promotion and retention of staff at all levels in order to create a more diverse workforce and develop more output that appeals to people from all backgrounds and regions of the UK.
I thank the hon. Member for Battersea again for bringing this incredibly important debate to the Floor of the House. I am pretty sure that my son will not thank me for mentioning him, but there is important work being done across the media and creative industries to improve the diversity of the industry. I am pleased that organisations such as the BBC and other UK broadcasters have taken this seriously and are moving in the right direction. I want to finish by reiterating that there is still much to do and that the Government will continue to encourage the media industry to continue these efforts.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.